Evaluating the Effectiveness of Aid for Climate Change in the Pacific Islands Region

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AID FOR CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS REGION

LINDA FLORA VAIKE

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Climate Change

Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development

The University of the South Pacific

Suva

DECLARATION

Statement by Author

i DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family and friends.

Lea liu to my very supportive husband, Samson Waqalevu Alasia Lidimani and my two children: Samson and Faith, for always believing in me. I would not have completed this work without your prayers, encouragement and support.

Special gratitude to my late dad, Brown Vaike, who has encouraged me to strive for the best in life. I would not have gone this far without your advices. To my mum, Susan and my step-father Naphtalie, you two have been there to encourage and support me in all aspects of life. My Siblings: Lyn Vaike, Selwyn Vaike, Chris Vaike and Faith Vaike. All of you have been my inspiration.

I also dedicate this work to my friends who have been cheer leaders from day one of this research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the following people who have assisted me with my work:

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the support from the USP-European Union Project (USP- EUGCCA Project) for their support in funding this research. The great assistance given has enabled me to carry out this research.

Secondly to my Academic Supervisors: Dr. Sarah Hemstock (Principal Supervisor), Dr. Morgan Wairiu (Co-supervisor) and Dr. Roy Smith (External Supervisor) for the much needed guidance on this topic and the overall research. This thesis would not have been complete without your great support and assistance.

Special thanks go most especially to the officials who gave up their time to be interviewed for this thesis. I would not be able to compile such work without your invaluable inputs.

I would also like to thank Mr. Naushad Yakub and Mrs. Tupeope Samani for their assistance in providing me with information for the community component of this research.

Lastly, to Mr Tapulolou Tuailemafua for his hospitality and assistance while I was in Samoa and to the rest of the PACE-SD staff for their assistance towards this research.

Without your assistances this research would not have been possible.

iii

ABSTRACT

Aid effectiveness is a highly debated topic with many researchers exploring various issues since charitable giving began. The topic has received even greater scrutiny since aid has been used as a means to pursue national interests. However, for the Pacific Islands Region, research into issue surrounding aid effectiveness, particularly aid targeted at climate change adaptation, is still at its infancy.

The Pacific Islands Region is among other developing regions in the world that depends on foreign aid as a financial resource for development. Climate change emerged as the greatest threat to development in recent decades. Although the region supports the idea of new and additional funding for climate change, the region is also aware that both climate finance and development aid should be utilized in an integrated way to support much needed long term developments.

This thesis explores the issue of aid effectiveness in the region, particularly aid for climate change adaptation and the various political and institutional requirements for effective aid and project management. Primary information was obtained through the use of semi-structured interviews with key government and regional organization officers. Secondary research strategies were also employed as part of this research. A thematic content analysis was used to analyse primary data.

Based on the results of this research, it is evident that aid for climate change adaptation is not viewed to be effective in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in the region. Four major issues were identified as factors which hinder aid effectiveness in the PICs. This includes: Coordination and Harmonisation, Accessibility to Climate Change Adaptation Funds, Institutional Capacity and Accountability and Transparency. This research also found that, where present, the four factors also affect effectiveness at the grassroots level. The four major factors, along with other relevant issues, form the major dialogue of this thesis. The thesis concludes by

using the information gathered to give recommendations for improving aid effectiveness for climate change adaptation in the PICs.

v ABBREVIATIONS

AAA – Accra Agenda for Action

ADB – Asian Development Bank

AF – Adaptation Fund

AFD – French Agency for Development

APAN – Asia Pacific Adaptation Network

AusAID –Australian Agency for International Development

BMZ – German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

BPoA – Barbados Programme of Action

CCA – Climate Change Adaptation

CCCPIR – Coping with Climate Change in the Pacific Island Region

COP – Conference of the Parties

CROP – Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific

CSIRO – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DAC – Development Assistance Committee

DRM – Disaster Risk Management

DRR – Disaster Risk Reduction

ECOSOC – The Economic and Social Council in the United Nations

EU – European Union

EUGCCA – European Union Global Climate Change Alliance

FCCC – Framework Convention on Climate Change

FICs – Forum Member Countries

FSF – Fast Start Finance

FSM – Federated States of Micronesia

GBP – British Pound

GCCA – Global Climate Change Alliance

GCCA: PSIS – Global Climate Change Alliance: Pacific Small Island States

GCCSIDS – Global Conference on Small Island Developing States

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

GEF – Global Environment Facility

GHG – Greenhouse Gas

GIZ – Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit

IBRD – International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

JICA – Japan International Cooperation Agency

JNAPs – Joint National Action Plans

KRAs – Key Result Areas

LCP – Labasa Cane Producers Association

vii

LDC – Least Developed Country

LDCs – Least Developed Countries

LDCF – Least Developed Countries Fund

MDGs – Millennium Development Goals

M & E – Monitoring and Evaluation

NAPA – National Adaptation Programmes of Action

NGOs – Non-government Organisations

NZAid – New Zealand Aid Programme

ODA – Official Development Assistance

ODI – Overseas Development Institute

OECD – Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation

PACC – Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change

PaCE-SD – Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development

PICs – Pacific Island Countries

PICTs – Pacific Island Countries and Territories

PIFACC – Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change

PIFS – Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

PIGGAREP – Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Project

PIPA – Pacific Islands Producers Association

viii

PNG – Papua New Guinea

PPCR – Pacific Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience

RE – Renewable Energy

REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

REDD+ – Goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

RPW – Rotary Pacific Water Foundation

SCCF – Special Climate Change Fund

SCF – Special Climate Fund

SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals

SIDS – Small Island Developing States

SOPAC - South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

SPC – South Pacific Community

SPBEA – South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment

SPEC – South Pacific Bureau for Economic Commission

SPREP – Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme

TA – Technical Assistance

TCDC –Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries

UK – United Kingdom

UN – United Nations

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

UNEP – United Nations Development Programme

UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USAid – United States Agency for International Development

US – United States

USP – University of the South Pacific

WAF – Water Authority of Fiji

WB – World Bank

WMO – World Meteorological Organisation

WSMP – Water Supply Management Plan

$ - US Dollars unless specified otherwise n/a – Not Available

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT…...... iv

ABBREVIATIONS ...... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... xi

LIST OF TABLES ...... xvi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xvii

CHAPTER 1– INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.0: Background of this Study ...... 1

1.1: Statement of the Problem ...... 6

1.2: Scope of Study...... 11

1.3: Aim of this Study...... 12

1.4: Implications of this Study...... 13

1.5: Thesis Overview ...... 13

1.6: Chapter Conclusion...... 15

CHAPTER 2 - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON AID EFFECTIVENESS16

2.0: Chapter Introduction ...... 16

2.1: Brief History of Foreign Aid ...... 16

2.2: The Aid Effectiveness Approach ...... 19

2.3: Aid Effectiveness in the PICs ...... 25

2.4: Linking Development and Climate Change ...... 29

2.5: Climate Financing in the PICs ...... 30

2.6: Effectiveness of Climate Change Finance ...... 35

2.7: Chapter Conclusion...... 37

CHAPTER 3- RESEARCH METHOD ...... 39

3.0: Chapter Introduction...... 39

3.1: Qualitative Research Approach ...... 39

3.2: Semi-structured Interviews ...... 41

3.3: Sample Size...... 42

3.4: Secondary/Desk Survey ...... 43

3.5: Data Analysis ...... 43

3.5.1: Thematic Content Analysis ...... 44

3.5.2: NVivo Software Package ...... 44

3.6: Research Ethics ...... 45

3.7: Limitations to the Research ...... 46

3.8: Chapter Conclusion...... 47

CHAPTER 4 - ROLE OF SELECTED REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC ...... 48

4.0: Chapter Introduction ...... 48

4.1: The Origins of Regionalism in the South Pacific...... 48

xii

4.2: The Role of Regional Organisations in the PICs...... 49

4.2.1: The Secretariat of the South Pacific Community (SPC)...... 50

4.2.2: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS)...... 55

4.2.3: The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)...... 62

4.2.4: The University of the South Pacific (USP)...... 70

4.3: The Role of the Regional Organizations of the South Pacific in Climate Resource Mobilization and Management...... 71

4.4: Chapter Conclusion...... 75

CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 76

5.0: Chapter Introduction ...... 76

5.1: Findings of Semi-structured Interviews ...... 76

5.1.1: Effectiveness of Aid for Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific Island Countries...... 77

5.1.2: Challenges to Making Aid Effective in the Pacific Islands Region...... 79

5.1.2.1: The Coordination and Harmonization Problem ...... 83

5.1.2.2: Accessibility to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Funds and Institutional Capacity...... 90

5.1.2.3: Donor Influence ...... 97

5.1.2.4: Accountability and Transparency to Climate Funds in the Region ...... 99

5.1.2.5: Other Issues Raised ...... 102

5.2: Linking the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles to Interview Statements ...... 104

xiii

5.3: Chapter Conclusion...... 109

CHAPTER 6 – AID EFFECTIVENESS: COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE BASED ON THE USP-EUGCCA PROJECT ...... 111

6.0: Chapter Introduction ...... 111

6.1: The European Union Global Climate Change Alliance (EUGCCA)...... 112

6.2: USP- EUGCCA Project...... 115

6.3: Background of Fiji ...... 117

6.3.1: Population and Economy ...... 118

6.4: Impacts of Climate Change in Fiji...... 120

6.5: USP-EUGCCA Project: Case Study of Three Communities in Fiji...... 120

6.5.1: Navai, Navudi and Rokosalase Villages ...... 121

6.5.2: Korolevu Village...... 125

6.5.3: Yanuca Island ...... 125

6.5.4: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Projects in the Communities in Fiji...... 128

6.6: Linking Aid Effectiveness at the Regional, National and Community Levels...... 131

6.7: Chapter Conclusion...... 134

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 136

7.0: Chapter Introduction ...... 136

7.1: Major Findings of the Primary Survey ...... 137

7.2: Recommendations to Ensuring Aid Effectiveness in the Region...... 138

xiv

7.3: Researching Aid Effectiveness in the PICs: A Way Forward ...... 143

7.4: Chapter Conclusion...... 144

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 145

APPENDICES………...... 160

Appendix 1: Copy of Confidentiality Agreement ...... 160

Appendix 2: Total Bilateral ODA to Fiji (1995-2013) ...... 161

Appendix 3: Total ODA to the Oceania ...... 162

Appendix 4: Total ODA to all recipients ...... 163

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Summary of the high level fora on aid effectiveness...... 23 Table 2.2: Relationship between the Paris Declaration and the Cairns Compact...... 28 Table 2.3: Multilateral donors in the PICs and their funding support...... 31 Table 2.4: Bilateral donors and their funding support...... 33 Table 4.1: Climate change projects implemented by SPC and development partners. ... 53 Table 4.2: Specific objectives and their expected outcomes of SPREP Action Plan (2001-2004)...... 66 Table 4.3: SPREP and donor-support activities...... 69 Table 4.4: Regional organisations' Mission and Vision statements...... 73 Table 5.1: Number of respondents on coordination and harmonization...... 83 Table 5.2: Number of respondents to accessibility of CCA funds and institutional capacity...... 91 Table 5.3: Number of respondents of donor influence...... 97 Table 5.4: Number of respondents of accountability and transparency...... 99 Table 5.5: Interview statements and Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles...... 105 Table 6.1: EUGCCA regional support in the PICs...... 113 Table 6.2: GCCA Pacific Islands’ country support...... 114 Table 6.3: Sanitation and water resource management and conservation Action Plan. 124 Table 6.4: Assessment of water sources...... 126 Table 7.1: Relationship between stated recommendations and Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles...... 140

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Total ODA disbursements to all developing countries for the period 2004 – 2013...... 4 Figure 1.2: Total ODA flows to the Oceania Region over the period 1991-2013...... 5 Figure 1.3: Map of the Pacific Islands ...... 9 Figure 5.1: Pie chart showing the percentage of responses to the effectiveness of aid in the PICs...... 77 Figure 5.2: Major issues raised and the number of respondents...... 80 Figure 5.3: Percentage (%) coverage of the themes in analysed script...... 81 Figure 5.4: Integrated Bilateral and Multilateral climate-related flows in 2013...... 94 Figure 5.5: Climate finance architecture in the region...... 96 Figure 6.1: Percentage budget allocation for the USP-EUGCCA project...... 116 Figure 6.2: Map of Fiji...... 118 Figure 6.3: Total ODA disbursed to Fiji over the period 1995-2013...... 119 Figure 6.4: Map of Seaqaqa District, Northern Fiji...... 122 Figure 6.5: Map of Yanuca Island in the Ringold Isles...... 126 Figure 6.6: Schematic diagram of Yanuca water supply system...... 128

xvii

CHAPTER 1– INTRODUCTION

1.0: Background of this Study

Climate change has become a global issue bringing about global, regional and local challenges. The earth has experienced a temperature increase since the industrial revolution in the 1800s with “each of the last three decades successively warmer at the earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850” (IPCC, 2013). Average temperature increase globally coincides with an increasing level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has caused the globe to warm at an unprecedented level in what is now widely known as global warming (Crank & Jacoby, 2015; IPCC, 2013). Although climate change had occurred in the past, scientific evidences had proven beyond doubt that human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, cement manufacturing, massive deforestation and clearing of huge areas of land for agricultural practices have contributed to the current observed warming (IPCC, 2013; Nunn, 1999; 2000).

While climate scientists are working hard to give evidence that climate change is real, climate sceptics and denialists have always questioned and criticized scientific evidence that proves climate change is occurring (Farnsworth & Lichter, 2011; Jasanoff, 2010; Oreskes, 2004; Oreskes & Conway, 2010). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 is the leading international scientific body responsible for the assessment of climate change. Although the IPCC does not carry out scientific research, the panel keeps the globe informed on the state of the climate. The IPCC’s role is to assess and review scientific, technical and socio-economic information on climate change (IPCC, 2015). Ever since its establishment, the IPCC has published a series of reports (known as the IPCC Assessment Reports) on the state of the climate system and climate change in general. The latest assessment report (Fifth Assessment Report), which was released in 2013, reported an “unequivocal warming of the climate system”. According to this assessment report, both the

atmosphere and ocean have warmed, snow and ice cover had diminished, sea levels had risen and concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases has increased (IPCC, 2013).

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are among the most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change (Nurse et al., 2014). Governments in the developing countries are continuously calling on the developed countries to take necessary actions and cut down on emissions. The international drive to reducing green-house gas emissions was formally negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 and came into force (as a treaty) as of 16 February 2005. This treaty is known as the “Kyoto Protocol”. Although the Kyoto Protocol is regarded as the “most prominent international agreement on climate change”, it is by far highly controversial. This controversy is reflected in the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by countries. Although a good number of countries ratified the protocol (in 2006 a total of 169 countries and government entities signed the agreement), developed countries like the United States and Australia who were among the biggest polluters in the world never signed up. In addition to this, countries like China and India who have emerged as major polluters in recent decades are not required (under the agreement) to reduce emissions (Sah & Joshi, 2007).

For the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) questioning whether climate change is really happening is not a topic for much debate. This region is among the first in the world to experience the impacts of climate change (Maclellan & Coates, 2012; Nurse et al., 2014; Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014a; Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014). Factors such as sea level rise, changing precipitation patterns, ocean acidification and increased frequency and intensity of some extreme events (for example: warm days and nights and heavy precipitation) have profound effects on the region’s food production, water availability and accessibility, and the overall livelihood of the people (Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, 2011; McNamara & Limalevu, 2001). These factors affect both men and women (including children) differentially. This difference is also evident across the Polynesian, Micronesian and the Melanesian sub-regions, given their differences in geological and geographical settings (McNamara et al., 2011). Nevertheless, Climate Change has affected all these countries and based on scientific projections most of the effects will continue to increase in

the near-term (the IPCC uses “near term” to refer to the period 2016 to 2035 relative to the reference period 1986 to 2005) (Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, 2011; Kirtman et al., 2013).

In such a region highly vulnerable to climate change, the best means to respond to the negative effects of climate change is through adaptation (Maclellan & Coates, 2012). Traditional means of adapting to changes in weather patterns and climate variability has proven to work for these countries, however, with climate change more effort is needed to fully tackle the challenges. Applying traditional knowledge, although had proven to be effective, may not be enough to fully address future threats imposed by climate change (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change & Sem, 2014). This is why, like any other developing vulnerable regions in the world, the PICs continuously rely on external financial assistances to help them in their adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Every year developed countries pledged in billions of dollars to help developing countries meet their developmental needs (Hjertholm & White, 1998; OECD, 2014d). As of 2011 the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) reported a total value of USD 38 billion of multilateral aid in Official Development Assistances (ODA) to developing countries (OECD, 2014a). This was an increase of one percent in real terms compared to the previous year. Despite the increase, the OECD had noted an increasing fragmentation of the aid. With the increasing level of fragmentation, governments are prioritizing and allocating significant aid budgets targeting global priorities (OECD, 2014c). Figures 1.1 and 1.2 below show the total amount of ODA disbursed to all developing countries within the years 2004 to 2013 and total ODA flows (for all sectors) to the PICs during the period 1991 to 2013 respectively. These graphs portray the increasing levels of aid disbursed to all developing countries and to the Oceania region. Major dialogue of this thesis will be centred partly on the effectiveness of these assistances in the PICs but more importantly on the effectiveness of the portion allocated to support climate adaptation activities (Refer to Chapter 2 and 5) for various sources of aid for climate change in the region).

Figure 1.1: Total ODA disbursements to all developing countries for the period 2004 – 2013.

160000 All Donors Total

140000

DAC Countries 120000 Total

Non-DAC 100000 Countries, Total

Current Prices (USD millions) 80000 Multilateral, Total

60000

40000

20000

Source: This study, based on data from OECD.org

Figure 1.2: Total ODA flows to the Oceania Region over the period 1991-2013.

2500

2000

1500

Oceania, Total

1000

500

0 Time Period 1995 2000 2005 2010

Source: This study, based on data from OECD.org

The PICs are well aware of the close relationship between development and climate change and the urgent need to maximize the effectiveness of the climate finances that are available internationally, regionally and locally. Efforts have been made both at the regional and national levels to address developmental challenges such as climate change. An important initiative was the setting up of various regional organisations that address issues common to the region. Although climate change only became an important development challenge over the last century, major government reforms and institutional strengthening continues to take place as the region tries to adapt to the long term impacts of climate change. A major driving force behind the current evolution and modification of the governing structures of entities that administer climate

change initiatives in the PICs is climate finance and the associated political and institutional requirements of associated with these financial resources.

Tracking of adaptation finance in particular exists with great difficulties. The Climate Funds Update is an independent website that keeps a record of all climate finances (Climate Funds Update, 2015). According to information made available through this source, the South Pacific Region (which includes all the PICs) has received a total of 9.9 dollars (in USD millions) worth of funds from various sources (multilateral, bilateral and private sources) for adaptation alone. Although this was intended to assist the region adapt to the negative impacts of climate change, very little practical outcomes are evident in the region, particularly at the grassroots level where the greatest effects are being felt.

Addressing effective and meaningful long-term adaptation and development in the region comes with a cost that usually involves huge amounts of money that are often not readily available internally. Maximizing the effectiveness of external climate finances will therefore ensure that the relatively small amounts of resources available have the greatest possible impacts, bringing about climate compatible development (Nakhooda & ODI, 2013).

1.1: Statement of the Problem

In the South Pacific Region, global forces such as colonization, nuclear testing, the Second World War, the Cold War, globalization and trade liberation have had profound social, economic and cultural impacts. Of all the global forces encountered, Climate Change is considered the greatest environmental threat and hindrance to the development of the PICs (Barnett, 2005; Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014a; Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014). Developmental challenges are becoming increasingly recognized even in the face of increasing external assistances (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2010b).With the conception of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the early 2000, more efforts have been made to ensure that development assistances are effective in improving the lives of the world’s poor (OECD, 2014a). While the PICs are already monitoring their progress in terms of

the MDGs, the biggest challenge for them now is how to effectively adapt to the negative impacts of climate change.

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities, developed countries (collectively known as Annex II Parties) are to assist developing countries financially in meeting their adaptation and mitigation needs (IPCC, 2015). Although these proposed financial assistances appear to be in billions of dollars, developing countries and most especially the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are faced with a myriad of obstacles especially in accessing these foreign financial resources (Maclellan, 2011). The political and institutional requirements of most of the financial assistances totally exclude some of the most vulnerable countries in the region. Countries that have already accessed climate financial resources under the convention still face daunting challenges to effectively implement practical adaptation activities. This had triggered this study to explore the issue of “Aid Effectiveness” for climate change adaptation in such a region highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and highly dependent on aid.

Aid Effectiveness is a term that has been around for quite a long time. The World Bank (WB) and OECD are among the organizations that play leading roles in driving development effectiveness. According to the World Bank:

“Aid Effectiveness is the impact aid has in reducing poverty and inequality, increasing growth, building capacity and accelerating achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set by the international community.” (The World Bank, 2014).

The OECD gave their definition of aid effectiveness as:

“Financial flows, technical assistance, and commodities that are (1) designed to promote economic development and welfare as their main objective (thus excluding aid for military or other non-development purposes); and (2) are provided as either grants or subsidized loans.” (OECD, 2014a; Radelet, 2006).

Apart from the definitions given by the WB and OECD, there are also other researchers who have provided definitions for aid effectiveness. Despite the many definitions given, the international drive on aid effectiveness is about improving the way aid is delivered and managed to ensure it has the maximum positive impact on the lives of those it is intended for (Healey, 2012).

Many researchers have already covered this discipline looking at it from many different angles. However, for the Pacific Islands Region, research into aid effectiveness is still at its infancy thus the topic is fairly new (Jayaraman & Choohg, 2006).

This study will explore the effectiveness of aid flows, specifically for climate change adaptation in the PICs. The term “Pacific Island Countries” (PICs) is widely used to describe the chain of islands located in the South Pacific Ocean also commonly referred to as ‘Oceania’. Three ethnographic groups exist within this region: Melanesia which includes the higher volcanic islands of Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands, Fiji and Vanuatu. Micronesia which includes Palau, Guam, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Kiribati and the Polynesian islands of Tuvalu, Tokelau, Wallis and Futuna, Samoa, Tonga, Niue, Cook Islands and French Polynesia. Figure 1.3 below is a map that shows the geographical locations of all the islands that make up the PICs.

Island sizes of these countries vary depending on their geomorphic and geological origin so that the volcanic islands are bigger in size and higher in elevation as compared to the oceanic and atoll islands (which are only a few meters above sea level).

Figure 1.3: Map of the Pacific Islands

Source: (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2014).

The PICs face similar and unique developmental challenges. Similar to other SIDS, they possess distinct characteristics that make them different from other developing countries when compared

globally. These special characteristics have been internationally recognized and are being repeatedly highlighted in a series of sustainable development forums related to SIDS. For example: the “Global Conference on Sustainable Development of SIDS” held in Barbados in April 1994, the “Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS” adopted in 1999 and the “Millennium Summit” that followed a year after. All conferences have highlighted SIDS’ special characteristics to include small size and isolation among others. For the PICs, small island sizes impose further challenges such as limited resources to support a rapidly growing population (often resulting in resource depletion), high dependence on international trade making them highly vulnerable to external shocks, and small administrations in-country with very limited institutional capacity. On top of these, isolation means high transportation costs which further impact on the expense of importing and exporting goods but also on personal travel (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2010). In their quest for economic growth and sustainable development, the PICs face numerous challenges including: “overcoming the threats of political instability, economic and social inequalities, land pressures and conflicts, environmental degradation, increasing incidences of HIV/AIDS and communicable diseases, and poor governance” (Prasad, 2008).

Due to their high degree of exposure and sensitivities, the PICs are also highly vulnerable to natural disasters and more importantly the impacts brought about by climate change and sea level rise (Hemstock & Smith, 2012; Kakazu, 1994; McNamara & Limalevu, 2001; United Nations General Assembly, 1994).

Sustainable development in the region is hampered by all the factors mentioned above (Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO, 2011; McNamara et al., 2011). These sustainable development challenges are likely to be heightened as a result of the negative impacts of climate change (McNamara et al., 2011).

The UNFCCC serves as a treaty by which over a hundred countries grouped together to consider actions that could be taken to address climate change (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2014).

For most PICs and of course the vulnerable developing countries, the convention serves as a very important agreement that will ensure the mobilization of much needed financial resources. For them, this means that they can look on the international community to assist them in their mitigation and adaptation efforts (Nakhooda & ODI, 2013; Nakhooda et al., 2014).

The grassroots populations in particular are faced with various adaptation needs given their direct interaction with the natural environment. Climate change had brought about food security issues that threaten the lives of these populations, further marginalising already marginalised communities. Women, children, those with disabilities and the elderly are among the most vulnerable.

The PICs are well aware of the available sources of such financial arrangements as those of the convention. However, most of the sovereign states do not have direct access to these resources. Countries often have to go through a myriad of processes and administrations in order to access the funds. These processes usually delay much needed adaptation activities in the region. Numerous calls have been made by regional and national leaders for more flexibility in donor conditionality towards climate finance, particularly the various financial allocations for adaptation. Although there are notable improvements being made in terms of accessing aid for climate change adaptation, most countries in the PICs are still struggling to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change (Feturi, 2012; Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014).

Aid for climate change adaptation, if utilized for practical adaptation measures, will greatly improve the lives of the most vulnerable in the societies. However, the question of whether financial resources are effective in ensuring the security of the most vulnerable in the region remains a question for the PICs.

1.2: Scope of Study.

This study will discuss the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation and some of the ongoing challenges faced by the different development partners that exist in the region who are

involved in mobilizing and managing aid for climate change adaptation. Perspectives from key officials from four regional organisations, national government representatives from the PICs and one community case study from the European Union Global Climate Change Alliance (EUGCCA) Project will be explored to determine the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation in the PICs.

Aid Effectiveness will be explored based on the governmental, administrative and institutional requirements for effective aid management. The various governmental, administrative and institutional arrangements play a significant role in ensuring aid effectiveness. Various development partners are engaged in carrying out climate adaptation initiatives in the region. It is therefore timely and very crucial that this study explore such issues. Finally, the thesis will explore effectiveness at the grassroots level.

1.3: Aim of this Study.

The aim of this study is to:

Evaluate the effectiveness of funds for climate change adaptation in the Pacific Islands Region.

With the broad aim above and based on the views involved directly in those processes, this thesis will try to answer the following questions:

How effective is aid for climate change adaptation in the region?

What is/are the major challenge(s) faced by regional organisations and national governments when dealing with the different development partners in the region?

How effective is aid for climate change at the grassroots level?

Based on officials’ experiences dealing with climate financial assistances, what would be some valuable recommendations to make aid more effective in the region?

1.4: Implications of this Study.

This study is intended to inform development partners in the PICs and the wider international community of the challenges faced by the PICs in dealing with climate financial assistances. Political and institutional arrangements have an important impact on aid effectiveness. Such arrangements facilitate resource mobilisation and implementation of much needed adaptation. This study is therefore important in bringing out the status of the PICs in effectively utilising climate adaptation resources and dealing with the complexities of various donor conditionality and the various governmental, administrative and institutional requirements relating to climate financial resources.

Different stakeholders encounter different challenges when it comes to dealing with aid for climate change. By sharing the stories from these differing groups, lessons will be shared and hopefully improvements made with respect to the current approaches of dealing with aid for climate change adaptation. This study will also help inform decision makers on how to make important decisions that will assist the region in mobilising, managing and utilizing climate financial resources in order to address the negative impacts of climate change and long term sustainable development.

The participants of this research (herein referred to as “respondents”) willingly participated in this research with the hope that a better and improved approach can be adopted by the different development partners involved in the web of partnership. This new approach should try and meet the objectives of each partner without jeopardizing that of the other and still help the most vulnerable people adapt to the negative impacts of climate change.

1.5: Thesis Overview

This chapter provided the background of this study and the aims, objectives and implications of the study. The study explores the issue of aid effectiveness in the PICs, in particular, aid for climate change adaptation.

Chapter 2 will explore current literature surrounding Aid Effectiveness globally and in the PICs. In the PICs, aid for climate change adaptation (commonly known as climate finance) is not always clearly defined and since climate change is considered a developmental issue, most of the factors that impact on traditional development assistances (ODA) will be very similar to that for climate change adaptation. Chapter 2 will therefore explore literatures surrounding the effectiveness of the traditional development aid and that for climate change. An important section in this chapter will explore the relationship between development aid and climate finance.

Chapter 3 will discuss the method used to collect data, including that used for analysis. The challenges encountered during the course of data collection and write up will also be discussed. As a researcher, it is important to share experiences and lessons learnt so that those that wish to undertake similar studies in the future can perform better if they are to come across similar challenges.

Chapter 4 will explore the role of four selected regional organizations (PIFS, SPC, SPREP and USP) whose officials were interviewed for this thesis. These organisations play an essential role in climate finance and resource management and mobilization.

Chapter 5 will provide the results of the semi-structured interviews conducted with officials from the four selected regional organisations and national governments in eleven PICs. This chapter will also discuss important factors that impede the effectiveness of aid in the region, in particular aid for climate change adaptation.

Chapter 6 will discuss aid effectiveness based on the EUGCCA Project Community Component. This chapter will explore in particular funded community adaptation activities in three communities in the Fiji Islands and their impact on people’s livelihood.

Chapter 7 will conclude the whole thesis highlighting the major findings of this research. An important section of this chapter is the recommendations section which will outline some of the recommendations to ensuring aid effectiveness in the PICs.

1.6: Chapter Conclusion

The PICs are among the most vulnerable countries in the world to the negative impacts of climate change. The region is highly dependent on aid for its developmental needs. Climate change is already hampering development in this part of the world. Foreign financial assistances to support adaptation efforts are already flowing into the region, however, the question of whether these assistances have gone to good use remains to be answered. This thesis seeks to find out the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation focusing on the different development partners that are involved in the mobilization and management of climate finance.

The researcher wishes to highlight again that the findings of this thesis are solely based on the challenges that the region is facing in dealing with climate change funding and the role of major stakeholders (regional organizations, governments and communities) that are involved in managing and mobilizing resources.

The participants of this research had hoped that by sharing their short stories on the challenges they are facing, a better approach will be sought for, an approach that works best for the region in meeting the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable in our societies to the negative impacts of climate change.

CHAPTER 2 - A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON AID EFFECTIVENESS

2.0: Chapter Introduction

Chapter 1 outlined the aim of this study and questions that will be answered as part of this research. As discussed in Chapter 1, aid effectiveness is not a new topic. There is a huge body of literature surrounding this topic. However, the PICs although highly dependent on aid, have very little research on the effectiveness of these foreign assistances. The effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation in particular has been a gap area that is yet to be addressed.

This chapter will explore the current body of literature surrounding aid and its effectiveness in positively impacting the lives of the world’s poor. The next section of this chapter will briefly explore the history of aid, most importantly since the conception of the ideology. Sections that follow will explore various literatures on aid effectiveness globally and in the region of focus. The close relationship between development aid and climate finance will also form part of the discourse of this chapter.

2.1: Brief History of Foreign Aid

Foreign Aid has its own history of conception. Most literatures had marked the start of aid with the ‘Marshall Plan’ (Botsiou, 2009; Hasnat, 2010). Yet others identified US Aid to Greece and Turkey even before the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan, however, was United States’ first official aid programme formulated to help Europe recover from its economic downfall after the Second World War (Botsiou, 2009; Lancaster, 2009). Kozul-Wright & Piergiuseppe (2011) have noted that although the Marshall Plan was solely intended to rebuild war-torn Europe, it already contained elements which would later become standard features of the modern aid programmes.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) now known as the ‘World Bank” was one of the first formed aid agencies initially set up to assist Europe’s post–war

reconstruction (The World Bank, 2014). As more countries became developed, the number of donor agencies increased with changes in the original focus from things to people. The changes that took place had differential impacts on the development pathways of the recipient governments, an issue that is of debate in the build-up of literature overtime (Wrighton, 2010).

Going through the history of aid, many authors have noted that from 1950s to 1980s, rich countries use foreign aid to assist developing countries in their ‘take-off’ into self-sustained growth through the generation of new domestic investment (Khan & Ahmed, 2007; Rostow, 1960; Waterston, 2006). However, in the early 1980s after the international crisis, aid’s ideology shifted aggressively to encourage economic reforms in the context of structural adjustment programmes. Support for structural adjustment programmes intensified at the beginning of the 1990s (Easterly, 2006; Kozul-Wright & Piergiuseppe, 2011). As explained by Dollar and Svensson (2000), “development assistance had shifted to a large extent in the 1980s from financing investments like roads and dams to promoting policy reforms.” The period from 1960 to 1990 had seen an increasing number of donor agencies. The 1990s also marked the end of the cold war and despite the increased number of donor agencies, the end of the cold war came with a decline in the strategic importance of foreign aid (Khan & Ahmed, 2007). In spite of this, foreign giving did not totally die out. A new aid ideology emerged later in the late twentieth century, with increasing population and major environmental concerns, the search for environmentally sustainable development emerged as a gap area to tackle under foreign aid (McArther, 2013).

Different authors and researchers had defined ‘Foreign Aid’ in slightly different ways. Lancaster (2009), for example, defined Foreign Aid as the “transfer of concessional resources from one government to another government, nongovernmental organization, or international organization, one purpose of which is to promote long-term beneficial change, including poverty reduction in the recipient country”. Adelman (2007), categorized USAid into three categories namely: disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, development and security assistances. Tarnoff and Lawson (2009), on the other hand, categorized aid into five broad categories. These included: Bilateral Development Aid, Economic Assistance, Humanitarian Aid, Multilateral Economic

Contributions and Military Aid. Tarnoff and Lawson further defined development assistance specifically to mean: “aid spent for the purpose of promoting economic growth and lifting people out of poverty”.

A more widely used definition comes from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Corporation and Development (OECD). According to DAC, Foreign Aid/Foreign Assistance is:

The widely used definition from the OECD clearly describes the purpose of foreign aid as a means to promote economic development and welfare. However, there are other literatures that had discussed foreign assistances in light of their embedded agendas. Hjertholm and White (1998), for example, had traced out the history of aid starting from the Marshall Plan in 1947 up until 1997. According to these authors, there had been changes in the aid ideology ever since the idea of aid was conceived so that what was initially meant for development in the recipient countries had now turned into a programme promoting political and commercial interests of donors. Along this same line, Arndt et al. (2009) further explained that Foreign Aid is not always a free resource transfer and is often given to recipient countries with economic and political conditions. The embedded agendas of foreign aid can have many impacts on aid effectiveness, particularly in developing regions such as the PICs. The intentions of aid, although have evolved, persisted up to this day. Issues such as donor conditionality, lack of strengthened institutional arrangements and weak political and governance structures impact aid and greatly undermines the “well intention” of aid in the region. These issues will be discussed in more detail in the proceeding chapters. Climate finance, although assumed to have been “new and additional” from the traditional ODA, is another evolution of the traditional ODA. As such, both its altruistic nature and the hidden traits cannot be completely ruled out. Unlike the traditional ODA, climate

change adaptation is by far an urgent action that does not allow room for more “red tapes” and messy bureaucracies. It is therefore very crucial that any assistance for climate change adaptation flows to the region achieve discrete outcomes particularly for the grassroots population whose lives are greatly threatened by the impacts of climate change.

Research on aid effectiveness is essential as it ensures lessons learnt are shared among different development partners. Kim and Oh (2012) had identified two pathways most researchers explored when dealing with foreign aid. These included aid allocation and aid effectiveness. The authors further explained that while the former focuses on the motivation and determinants behind aid allocation, the later focuses on how to better manage aid for results. This study will focus much of its attention on aid effectiveness.

2.2: The Aid Effectiveness Approach

In the current body of literature surrounding aid effectiveness, mixed approaches had been taken in trying to determine the effectiveness of foreign aid. Donors and their governments view aid as a moral issue. Yet the benefits and virtues of aid have been contested and challenged and have been viewed with scepticism and suspicion (Riddel, 2007).

An interesting study carried out by Kozul-Wright & Piergiuseppe (2011) had explored the changes in the discussions surrounding aid effectiveness ever since the Marshall Plan was conceived. According to these authors, early debates on aid effectiveness were measured against the commitments of the Marshall Plan which had been “Europe’s post war recovery”, however, because the volume of aid was relatively low (as compared to current volumes), the impacts of these assistances never matched commitments made under the Marshall Plan. The authors further argued that a great limiting factor to measuring the effectiveness of aid during that time were missing and unreliable data. According to these authors, although the intention of aid was mainly to help Europe recover from its downfall, the connection to aid development in developing countries was quickly made. The intention of aid had greatly evolved from strictly assisting Europe’s recovery to assisting economic development globally.

A huge body of literature had explored aid effectiveness employing the “aid-growth relationship” using various indicators (example: Alvi et al., 2008; Minoiu & Reddy, 2007; Ouattara & Strobl, 2008). These studies have contradictory conclusions. Despite the numerous studies undertaken, a consensus is yet to emerge (Kenny, 2006; Minoiu & Reddy, 2007; Skander et al., 2008).

The great debate on whether aid encourages growth in developing countries gained great momentum following the work of Burnside and Dollar (2000) which concluded that “aid positively impacts on growth in developing countries that have good fiscal, monetary and trade policies and do otherwise in countries with poor policies”. Burnside and Dollar’s work had encouraged major policy reforms in some institutions and countries around the world. Despite the growing recognition of their work, Burnside and Dollar’s findings were later condemned by other researchers (Easterly et al., 2003; 2004; Ouattara & Strobl, 2008). In fact, there is a lot of skepticism surrounding charitable giving.

Among the most popular discussions critiquing the ability of aid to make positive impacts on the lives of the poor were those from Boone (1995), Easterly (2006) and Moyo (2009). In a review on the best and worst practices of aid donors, Easterly (2006) noted that within the period 1960 to 2008, there was a transfer of over $4.6 trillion dollars in gross Official Development Assistant (ODA) to developing countries. Despite this huge amount of aid, a substantial amount of the world still live in poverty. In his famous book titled “The White Man’s Burden”, Easterly (2006) argued that the West’s effort to help developing countries out of poverty cannot work because they are based on ambitious plans. Easterly (2006) further argued that what the poor needed was a piecemeal solution to their problems. Similar to Easterly’s arguments were those from Boone (1995) and Moyo (2009). Boone (1995) had argued that aid does not benefit the poor, nor does it improve investments and growth. According to Boone, the only impact that aid has on countries is increasing the size of governments. Moyo (2009) noted that despite huge amounts of assistances in development aid given to Africa, there were no positive impacts, however, the region is trapped in an aid dependency trap and continues to suffer from corruption, market distortions, and further poverty. Years of huge amounts of assistances has left them with nothing but the need for more aid. The finding of Boone (1995) is obviously true for the PICs region. To

date, the region is “shaping itself as a region of organisations, a region of sub-regions and a region of communities” (Rolfe, 2007). This was partly due to the need for more country and regional representation but to a greater extent driven by the growing need for more aid.

A report by Oxfam International (2010) argued that although criticisms have been made regarding the effectiveness of aid in positively improving the lives of the world’s poor, conclusions should not be drawn from studies that focused on a single failed aid. According to this report, there were aid programmes that help poor people out of poverty.

There are many justifications given to the factors that determine the effectiveness of aid in the recipient countries. Apart from the good policy environment mentioned by Burnside and Dollar (2000), Ouattara and Strobl (2008a) found that the effectiveness of aid depends largely on the modality by which aid is given so that project aid affects positively and significantly on growth and that climate-related conditions have an effect on project aid. In line with the findings of the authors previously mentioned, a report released by the World Bank in 2006 authored by Kenny (2006) further added that “programmatic aid should be expanded in countries with strong institutions while project aid should be supported based on its ability to transfer knowledge and test new practices and/or support global public good provision rather than (merely) as a tool of financial resource transfer”.

In comparison to the findings previously mentioned, Rajan and Subramanian (2007) found little evidence of aid’s impact on growth. According to these authors, “there is very little robust evidence that aid impacts growth and there is no evidence which proves aid being effective in a good policy environment, neither does aid modality impact on growth.”

In its most general terms, the international drive on aid effectiveness is about improving the way aid is delivered and managed to ensure it has the maximum positive impact on the lives of those it is intended for, reducing poverty and achieving value for money (Healey, 2012).

The OECD had been at the forefront of making aid work better in recipient countries by learning from both positive and negative outcomes of past aid flows to recipient countries thereby improving on the failures and encouraging successful practices (Asia-Pacific Aid Effectiveness Portal, 2009; OECD, 2014a).

In responding to the many calls to make aid work better in recipient countries, world leaders came together in what was known as the first high level forum on aid effectiveness which took place in Rome in 2003 leading to the “Rome Declaration”. Here a set of principles was agreed on. The forum was specifically based on ‘Harmonization’ and is therefore considered to be most relevant for donors. Two years after the Rome Declaration was set out, the second high level forum took place in Paris. This is known as the ‘Paris Declaration’ and is recognized as the first international agreement on aid effectiveness. Here, both donors and recipients made commitments in what resulted in the widely known Paris Declaration. The principles that were agreed upon in this high level forum were thus aimed at both donors and aid recipients (OECD, 2014a). A series of forums followed soon after the Rome Declaration and the Paris Declaration. Table 2.1 gives a summary of the high level forums on Aid Effectiveness and the commitments agreed upon.

The number of the stakeholders interested in making aid work better grew with each successive forum held. Previous commitments were reinforced at each successive forum with yet a few additional ones. These series of meeting are considered important as they encourage behavioural change among the different partners involved in the “aid-recipient” relationship and overall development (Gurria, 2010). The principles are valuable in the sense that they assist development partners understand respective political and institutional circumstances but also encourage further reform and strengthening of weak governing structures.

Table 2.1: Summary of the high level fora on aid effectiveness. FORUM COMMITMENTS STAKEHOLDERS (YEAR) INVOLVED - That development assistance be delivered based on the priorities

and timing of the countries receiving it.

Rome - That donor effort concentrates on delegating co-operation and increasing the flexibility of staff on country programmes and projects. Donors (2002) - That good practice be encouraged and monitored and backed by analytic work to help strengthen the leadership that recipient countries can take in determining their development path.

1. Ownership: Developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions and tackle corruption. 2. Alignment: Donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems. Paris Donors and Recipients 3. Harmonisation: Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and (2005) share information to avoid duplication. 4. Results: Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured.

5. Mutual accountability: Donors and partners are accountable for development results.

It proposes improvement in the areas of ownership, partnerships and Accra delivering results. Donors, Recipients and Civil Society (2008) Capacity development also lies at the heart of the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA). Representatives

Busan a broader and deeper partnership at all levels of development, Donors, Recipients and including developing and developed countries, and private and non- Civil Society governmental organisations. (2011) Representatives a set of aid effectiveness principles based on persuasive evidence to eliminate policies that make development results more difficult to reach.

a revitalised global effort towards reaching the MDGs and addressing the need for global public goods.

the recognition that the world's poorest and most fragile states need security, capacity and special consideration .

the recognition that achieving results must be based on policies, laws and institutional arrangements that encourage everyone to directly participate in the development process

the recognition that all participants in development are mutually accountable in producing and measuring results - which means that they must develop the capacity to collect, evaluate and report data that illustrates the effectiveness of programmes and their worth

Source: Adapted from OECD. org

Many development partners use commitments outlined in Table 2.1 above as indicators when measuring aid effectiveness. The PICs are also monitoring progress against these principles as indicators of development effectiveness in the region. However, the extent to which this is even applicable at the grassroots level, particularly in the PICs, remains an area to explore. Chapters 5 and 6 of this thesis will explore this in detail.

2.3: Aid Effectiveness in the PICs

There is very limited research done on the effectiveness of aid flows to the Pacific Islands Region. According to Jayaraman and Choohg (2006), although having been a region widely known as recipients of substantial aid, there have been no similar and comparative studies done on the aid-growth relationship in the PICs. The few existing studies conducted around this topic had taken different approaches to the aid effectiveness phenomenon.

Hemstock and Smith (2012), were among the few researchers who had conducted research on this topic. These two authors explored the issue of aid effectiveness looking specifically into aid’s effectiveness on the energy sector of Tuvalu, a small island nation located in the South Pacific Region. According to these two authors, aid flows to Tuvalu have not been able to support any sustainable project that would lead the country towards achieving its commitment of a ‘carbon-neutral’ energy source in the year 2020. These authors had clearly given the reasons why aid is not effective in Tuvalu, one reason being that much of the aid available for energy services in the country had been used for policy development. While this is beneficial in some aspects, it has left no room for practical sustainable projects. The authors further argued that such money, if used practically, can be useful to deliver energy services to the rural poor. As a result of this, Tuvalu’s energy sector has since been trapped in an aid dependent cycle.

Wrighton (2010) has taken yet another approach in the aid effectiveness literature. Wrighton had explored the issue of participation and consultation and their impact on a small country like Tuvalu, having a very small administration in-country. Consultation and participation had been recognized as a positive approach that can have positive implications on development. Wrighton,

however, found out that such approaches while intended for good purposes can hamper development effectiveness especially in a small island country like Tuvalu, having had a very small administrative body to manage aid and at the same time responding to the requirements of its many development partners.

Jayaraman and Choohg (2006) were among the two early authors who had explored the effectiveness of aid in the PICs employing the aid-growth relationship. Here the authors used Fiji as a case study. The authors tested the relationship between aid-growth and GDP in Fiji over the period 1970 to 2002. Based on their findings, “growth is positively associated with aid. However, aid is subject to diminishing returns.” Their results also showed that a lower ratio of recurrent to total expenditure contributes to growth and that sensible policies which can keep inflation low can also result in growth. The authors further argued that apart from lack of implementation of good policies, the absence of serious commitment of administration in recipient countries and of adequate monitoring by and coordination among donors are two of the major contributing factors for the ineffectiveness of aid in most PICs.

Hughes (2003), in a paper titled “Aid Has Failed the Pacific” had also tried to address aid effectiveness in the PICs. According to Hughes, aid has not been effective in enhancing growth in the PICs. Living standards have failed miserably. Social problems such as population growth, unemployment and crime have risen over the past years. Continuous aid flows have failed to address these problems. According to the author, the main reason why aid had failed was due to its fungibility, because aid is fungible, it benefited only the political and bureaucratic elites and their business cronies. This is true specifically for the PICs, where aid is often considered as government revenue. Countries spend aid on consumption rather than investment. Such practices favour corruption while undercutting employment and growth. Hughes (2003), also noted that despite large sums of aid flows to the region, public services such as roads, electricity, telecommunications, schools, health centres and village standards are deteriorating.

Ever since the Paris Declaration commitments were made, many aid recipients had tried to forge their own sets of principles (Gurria, 2010; OECD, 2014a). The PICs formed a set of principles

collectively known as the “Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles”, more formally referred to as the “Cairns Compact on Strengthening Development Effectiveness in the Pacific”. This set of principles is derived from the Paris Declaration and are therefore closely linked to its principles (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2007a; Wrighton, 2010).

Table 2.2 outlines the close relationship between the principles of the Paris Declaration and the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles. Although there is limited research on the effectiveness of aid in the region, according to the political elite grouping PIFS, the region continues to realize the positive practical impacts aid can have on the livelihood of the people should these foreign financial assistances go to good use (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2007a). From the work of Hughes (2003), it would be interesting to know if the aid impacts on “livelihood” are at the grassroots level. The Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles do not go into detail on this.

The Primary findings of this research (Chapter 5) will further provide information on the effectiveness of the Cairns Compact based on the perspectives of respondents.

In the South Pacific Region, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) plays a leading role towards monitoring the principles set out in the Cairns Compact and according to the organization:

“Aid Effectiveness refers to the relative strength of development assistance and development cooperation in achieving its stated goals and objectives“. (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2007a).

The compact was agreed upon by Forum leaders and endorsed by key development partners. It is intended to improve aid coordination in the region. The compact responds to leaders’ concern that despite continued high levels of development assistance over the years, the region remains off-track to achieving the MDGs by 2015 (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2007a). It will be interesting to explore further the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the region.

Table 2.2: Relationship between the Paris Declaration and the Cairns Compact.

Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles Paris Declaration

1. Country leadership and ownership Ownership

2. Multiyear commitments by development partners and countries Alignment aligned nationally identified priorities

3. Greater Pacific ownership of regional development Ownership

4. Development partners and countries pursue a coordinated approach Harmonization encouraging harmonization

5. Strengthened institutional mechanisms and capacity in countries in Alignment enable increased use of local systems.

6 (i). Provision of technical assistance that ensures capacity is built Ownership and benefits are tangible to support national ownership

6 (ii) Short term Technical assistance addresses local skills gaps and Alignment are culturally sensitive

7. Use of agreed monitoring and evaluation framework that will Mutual Accountability ensure joint assessments

Source: This study, based on information from: OECD.org, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (2007a) and Wrighton (2010).

Ever since the adoption of the Forum Compact in July 2007 in Koror, Palau, assessments had been conducted particularly on the progress of individual countries towards the commitments set out in the compact. “Peer Review Reports”, as they were called, are made available through the Forum Secretariat’s website. These reports were prepared as part of the agreement made by

Forum leaders during the signing of the Cairns Compact in 2009; to have the compact reviewed on a regular basis by a review team comprising of individuals from some of the Forum Island Countries (FICs), development partners and other stakeholders (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2007a). Wrighton (2010), however, noted that “although the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles were admirable, there had been no research on their implementation by development agencies doing work in the Pacific”.

2.4: Linking Development and Climate Change

Various literatures had outlined the close relationship between development and climate change. Exploring the linkages between development and climate change is important especially when considering overall economic and sustainable development (IPCC, 2015; Nakhooda & ODI, 2013; Ockenden & OECD, 2014).

According to Ayers et al. (2014), it is certain that those in urgent need of adaptation are the poor in developing countries. These people are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change with very limited capacity to adapt. The capacity to adapt to climate change is highly dependent on the level of development. It has been widely agreed that developed countries can more easily adapt to climate change than developing countries. In the developing countries, factors such as poverty, social and political marginalization had placed communities in a vulnerable state to the negative impacts of climate change and other stresses. With climate change, the drive to eradicate poverty and address other development issues is further undermined. According to the authors, the close linkages between climate change and development had led to many calls for the integration of the two across all sectors.

According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), development and climate change have a “dual relationship”. The later influences important natural and human living conditions which serve as the basis for socioeconomic development while societies’ priorities on the former influences GHG emissions that causes climate change (IPCC, 2007).

Development and climate change cannot be dealt with separately. As noted by Shalizi and Lacocq (2009), climate change has emerged as the greatest challenge to development strategies. The impact of climate change on development strategies will require a substantial modification of the allocation of development resources. Shalizi and Lacocq have provided a diagrammatic representation (outlined below) of the relationship between economic and social development and climate change.

“Economic activities → GHG emissions →Atmospheric concentrations of GHG → Climate change Impacts on physical and ecological systems →Impacts on economies and human welfare.” (Shalizi & Lacocq, 2009)

2.5: Climate Financing in the PICs

Both multilateral and bilateral governments are engaged in mobilizing climate finance in the PICs. The “Pacific Climate Change Portal” tracks the financial status of climate finance made available to the region. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 respectively summarize multi-lateral and bilateral donors and their funding support in the region.

The two tables above showed that the region has already received substantial amounts of aid for climate change. The effectiveness of these assistances can be measured using various approaches. However, real effectiveness can only be meaningfully achieved if resilience to the negative impacts of climate change is increased. This can only be achieved if the region’s institutions are equipped with the relevant expertise required to handle the various political and institutional requirements that come with these financial assistances.

Based on the information provided in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, different donors focus on specific sectors, this can be overlapping at times. Each donor prefers a specific sector to work on and uses a preferred modality when disbursing funds. Credible efforts have been made in addressing adaptation in the region, however, the predetermined nature of the types of projects and modalities used have brought about challenges in the region (refer to Chapter 5 for more on this).

Table 2.3: Multilateral donors in the PICs and their funding support.

Multilateral Global Fund PIC/SIDS’s Financing Sectoral Focus Project Examples in Fund Allocation Allocation Modality PICs

Estimated Average proje Grants Adaptation, Agriculture, Climate Resilience, Coastal Zone PNG, Cook Is, Samoa, Adaptation US$300-500 ct size $7 Management, Disaster Risk Reduction, Energy Efficiency, Solomon Is. Fund m million Fisheries, Forestry, Industry, Infrastructures, Low-carbon, Natural Resource Management, Populations and Human Settlements, Renewable Energy, Services, Sustainable Land Management. Climate Adaptation, Mitigation, Disaster Risk reduction, Agriculture, Change Fund US$50 m No specific Grants, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Forestry, Populations and Human Cook Islands. (ADB) Pacific Loan, ODA Settlements, Renewable Energy, Sustainable Land Allocation Management, Transport, Water+ GEF Least Developed US$169 m LDC’s Only Grants, Adaptation, Capacity Building, Mitigation, Climate Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Countries Technical Resilience, Agriculture, coastal zone management, Disaster Kiribati Fund (LDCF) Assistance Risk Reduction, reduction, Fisheries, Forestry, Population (TA) and Human Settlements, Sustainable Land Management, Water

Grants, TA, Vanuatu, Cook Islands, Global ODA & FSM, Kiribati, Marshall Climate Budget Islands, Nauru, Palau, Change EUR139.6m 100% SIDS & Support Mainstreaming, Forestation, Adaptation, DRR, Financing and PNG, Samoa, Solomon Alliance (EU) LDC’s (BS) Aid Delivery Modalities and Approach. Is., Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Global Facility for Disaster US$ 324m No specific Grants, TA, Adaptation, Capacity Building, Agriculture, Climate Fiji Reduction and allocation Co-finance Resilience, Coastal Zone Management, Disaster Risk Recovery Reduction, Fisheries, Forestry, Infrastructures, Natural Resource Management, Populations and Human Settlements, Sustainable Land Management, Tourism, Transport, Waste Management, Water

52 billion Depends on Grants, Adaptation, Capacity Building, Mitigation, Agriculture, Solomon Islands & PNG International pledged country’s Loan, TA Climate Resilience, Fisheries, Forestry, Industry, Development income level Infrastructure, Natural Resources Management, Populations Association and Human Settlement, Sustainable Land Management, Water (IDA) 2012-2014 currently under replenishment

Pacific Pilot Programme for US$1 billion US$ 65m Grants, Adaptation, Agriculture, Climate Resilient, Coastal Zone PNG, Samoa, Tonga Climate Loan, Management, Energy, Forestry, Infrastructures, Low Carbon, Resilience ODA, TA Populations and Human Settlements, Sustainable Land (PPCR) 2 Management, Water

World Bank Group No specific No specific Risk Adaptation, Capacity Building, Disaster Risk Management All PICs Catastrophic global PIC’s/SIDS’s Manageme Risk funding allocation nt Management allocation

Source: This study, based on data from Pacific Climate Change Portal (2013)

Table 2.4: Bilateral donors and their funding support.

Bilateral Fund Financing PIC’s/SIDS’s Sectoral Focus Pacific Examples Fund Allocation Modality Allocation

AusAID AUD 600m Grants No specific Adaptation & Mitigation PACC Project, Pacific amount, Future Climate Leaders however SIDS Programme. are a key focus

AFD (France) n/a Grants, TA US$7 m Coastal Zone management & Adaptation Pilot in Fiji, Vanuatu, New Caledonia & French Polynesia

Climate and US$115m Co-financing, No specific Adaptation, Capacity Building, Mitigation, Agriculture, Nauru and Pacific island Development Grants, TA allocation Climate Resilience, Energy Efficiency, Forestry, Negotiators Knowledge Sustainable Land Management Network

International GBP 2.9 Grants, Loan, No specific Adaptation, Mitigation, Agriculture, Climate n/a Climate Fund billion Loan allocation Resilience, Coastal Zone Management, Energy, Energy (UK) Guarantee, Efficiency, Forestry, REDD+, Renewable Energy, ODA Water

International $120m per Grants, Loan, No specific Adaptation, Mitigation, Biodiversity, REDD+ Climate annum ODA allocation Initiative (Germany)

JICA (Japan) No specific Grants, Loan, No specific Multi-sectoral PNG, Solomon Islands, allocation TA allocation Fiji, FSM, Palau, Samoa, Tuvalu & Vanuatu

NZAID (New NZ$90 m Grants, TA 75% allocated Climate Change & Environment All PICs Zealand) to PICs

Haytoyama No minimum Grants, Loan, No minimum Adaptation, Mitigation, Agriculture, Disaster Risk Tuvalu Fund (Japan) or maximum ODA or maximum Reduction, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy amount amount

USAID n/a Grants No specific Adaptation & Mitigation FSM, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, allocation Palau, PNG, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Is., Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

Source: This study, based on data from Pacific Climate Change Portal (2012).

2.6: Effectiveness of Climate Change Finance

Studies surrounding aid effectiveness have revolved a lot around official development assistances. Climate change is now widely recognized to further impact development strategies and sustainable development (IPCC, 2007; Shalizi & Lacocq, 2009).

For the donor community, evaluating the effectiveness of their assistances is of prime importance. Similar to traditional ODA, donors of climate finance need to do proper reporting to the tax-payers and other development partners to ensure mutual accountability. The New Zealand Aid Programme (NZAid) for example, is being monitored and evaluated based on a government evaluation policy. “The programme has a clear focus on measuring results”. In doing so, NZAid monitors and evaluates its efforts based on its “Strategic Results Framework”. Similar to this, the Australian Aid Programme (AUSAid) is continuously measuring “aid performance” based on its performance framework (known as “Making Performance Count”). These are just two examples that show donor commitment to aid effectiveness, similarly other donors have their own templates, methods and criteria to measure the effectiveness of their respective aid programmes (Australian Government, 2015; New Zealand Government, 2015).

There are studies that explored aid effectiveness specifically for climate change. As part of their research, Bird and his team mapped out the different knowledge management initiatives employed by donors, civil society and academic actors surrounding climate finance (Bird et al. 2011; 2013). In 2009, much of the work of Bird and his colleagues concentrated on tracking international climate finance flows. These studies were considered helpful as they contributed a lot to transparency and accountability. Donors and recipients alike need to know where money was coming from and where it was going. This is also part of the Paris Aid Effectiveness Principles. In 2010 most of the team’s analysis shifted towards analysing the ‘effectiveness’ of aid for climate finance. The effectiveness of aid assessments involved learning lessons from past development finance. Work on this topic gained much more momentum in 2011 following the signing of the Busan Partnership for Effective Development and Cooperation which had identified climate finance as a development priority. Bird and his team had realized the close

linkage between development and climate change. Recognizing the importance of assessing aid effectiveness for climate finance in line with development effectiveness had shown that the indicators used for assessing development effectiveness can also be used to judge climate finance (Bird et al., 2011). Bird and Glennie (2011), in a similar study, further noted that although climate finance is sometimes considered as very distinct from development finance, there are some very clear similarities. The two authors had compared and contrasted aid and climate finance. Based on their findings, huge differences existed between the two (climate finance and development aid) in terms of their governing structures and the principles they are set to fulfil. It had been argued that while traditional ODA has five principles (as outlined in the Paris Declaration), climate finance has ten principles (Polluter Pays, Additionality, Transparency, Accountability, Equitable Representation, National Ownership, Timelines, Appropriate, Fair Distribution and Complementarity) to fulfil. Nevertheless, the principles of climate finance can well be applied to the delivery of aid. The close relationship between these separate forms of finance (ODA and new and additional climate finance) was further supported by a study conducted by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), a leading institute that carries out studies on the effectiveness of climate finance. While much of their studies focused on multilateral sources of climate finance, the frameworks and indicators used to measure effectiveness was regarded as highly relevant to bilateral and other sources of climate finance (Climate Funds Update, 2014).

In line with the discussion above, development and climate change cannot be dealt with separately, particularly in the PICs where few resources had to be spread widely among many countries. In such circumstances, it is important to share lessons learnt from within the region and in other parts of the world. According to Nakhooda et al. (2014), multilateral climate finances were already positively aiding climate related development in some countries in the world. According to Nakhooda et al. (2014), mitigation finances are well directed towards developing countries that have high emission rates while adaptation funds towards some of the most vulnerable countries. The finding of Nakhooda and his team, although it may be true in other regions of the world, remains to be explored in the PICs.

Nakhooda et al. (2014) further noted that while positive lessons can be drawn out from some of the countries who have access to multilateral funds, “funds must become more flexible and less risk averse if they are to support the innovative approaches that will likely be required to green development trajectories of fast growing economies and foster resilience for the most vulnerable”. The authors also emphasized the need for greater coordination among donors, the various implementing entities and national stakeholders in order to strengthen existing policies and frameworks that will further support the enabling environment to scale up climate finance, despite the complexity of the current global finance architecture (refer to Chapter 5 for a diagram on finance architecture in the region). Nakhooda and his team further pointed out that “insufficient resources spread thinly across many small funds with overlapping remits”.

As previously discussed, differing approaches had been taken in assessing the effectiveness of aid for climate change and ODA. Independent reviewers, donors, implementing entities as well as recipients can equally weigh the effectiveness of programme outcomes and outputs. Nakhooda and ODI (2013), had provided a framework, considered to be useful when determining the effectiveness of international climate finance. According to this framework, five important issues or indicators should be considered when measuring the effectiveness of climate finances. These five issues include: the driving objectives, the instruments, the process of spending (includes: resource mobilization approach, voice and administration, investment strategy and fund allocation, disbursement and risk management, monitoring and evaluation and learning), the outcomes of spending (including: scale, enabling environments supporting policy, governance and institutions, catalytic role, innovation and national ownership), and the role in the international climate finance architecture. While all five issues may not be applicable to all forms of finances, some of the issues can be very useful to measure effectiveness. As for the PICs, apart from the specific indicators used by donors and implementing entities, aid effectiveness is still broadly measured based on the principles of the Paris Declaration and the Cairns Compact.

2.7: Chapter Conclusion

This chapter explored literatures surrounding development aid and climate finance. Early sections of this chapter provided a brief history of foreign aid starting off with the Marshall Plan

and how charitable giving evolved to become what is now widely known as ‘aid’. Assessing the effectiveness of aid started off as soon as the idea of charitable giving was conceived. Section 2.3 explored the different approaches employed by researchers in measuring aid effectiveness. Since the focus of this thesis is on aid effectiveness for climate change adaptation in the PICs. Section 2.6 explored various literatures surrounding the effectiveness of climate finance.

The PICs are aware of the close relationship between development and climate change. Although there is currently no regionally agreed framework for measuring the effectiveness of climate finance, the Cairns Compact contains major indicators used to measure aid effectiveness in the region.

CHAPTER 3- RESEARCH METHOD

3.0: Chapter Introduction.

The previous chapters have set the foundation of this research. Chapter 1 gave an overview of what the topic is and what this study aims to achieve. Chapter 2 explored Aid Effectiveness and the literatures surrounding aid effectiveness in general and from the region of focus.

This chapter will focus on the method used to gather information for this thesis. Since this study involves a qualitative study, the next section will focus on Qualitative Research Approach. Sections that will follow will include:

Semi-Structured Interview: the form of interview used to gather primary information for this study. Secondary/Desktop Survey: an approach that was also employed to generate information for this thesis. Data Analysis: this will discuss the method of data analysis used. The software package that was used to analysis the raw data will form the major part of the discussion in this section. Research Ethics: this takes into consideration the ethics surrounding the topic and the people who took part in providing information for this research. Limitations of the Research: will discuss the limitations of this research. Limitations associated with the software package used will be discussed together with the limitations encountered during and while conducting this research.

3.1: Qualitative Research Approach

Doing research which involves people is a type of research which falls under the broad category of “Social Research” (Wellington & Szczerbinski, 2007).

Social research has undergone great debate and continues to be a highly contested discipline with so much controversies and disagreements from research experts. Within the field of social sciences, there are differing notions about what social research seeks to achieve. Researchers distinguish between three types of research namely: “Descriptive Research which provides a detailed account of events or situations in order to gain a clearer picture of what is going on, Explanatory Research which explores the relationship between cause and effect, and Explanatory Relationship which investigates new areas and generate new theories and concepts” (Denscombe, 2009).

Wellington and Szczerbinski (2007) had discussed the contrasting approaches that researchers often refer to when conducting research. According to these authors, most researchers classify research methods as opposing poles. Terms commonly used include: “positivist/interpretive, interventionist/non-interventionist, experimental/naturalistic, case-study/survey and qualitative/quantitative”. These authors had further noted that although there are opposing descriptions of research methods, most studies had employed either a mixture or an overlap of the opposing poles.

Qualitative research in particular is often described by the methods used. Methods of the sort include: participant observation, in-depth interviews or case studies. Qualitative research is however more than just the method. It is an inquiry based approach that is constructed on sets of assumptions about how knowledge is generated and about the nature of reality itself. In contrast to the quantitative approach that borrows from the scientific method of the natural sciences, qualitative research seeks to “understand what contributes to people’s subjective understanding of reality”. For this reason, qualitative research aims to “build an understanding of the way people experience life, how people interpret the world around them and the impact these has on their actions” (Mathie & Carnozzi, 2005).

When doing qualitative research, it is important to know the goals of this approach. Firstly, qualitative research seeks “depth rather than breadth”. Qualitative researchers’ main goal is to

gather in-depth and intimate information about a smaller group of people rather than drawing from a large representative sample of an entire population of interest (Anne-Marie et al., 1995).

The present study employs a qualitative research approach from information gathering through to data analysis. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and through secondary avenues such as the use of readily available data from existing sources. The data analysis done was also qualitative; however, results were presented quantitatively in tabular and graphical forms. A method of data analysis known as the “Thematic Content Analysis” was used for this project. Details of this approach will be discussed later on in this chapter.

3.2: Semi-structured Interviews

“Interviews are by nature, social encounters where speakers collaborate in producing retrospective (and/or prospective) accounts or versions of their past (or future) actions, experiences, feelings and thoughts” (Seale et al., 2002).

Interviews can be done individually, through focus groups and as a mixed group interview. There are various ways to conduct interviews, either as informal conversations, semi-structured or standardized open-ended interview. Informal interviews are often associated with personal observations and allow more flexibility. In this way, information is gathered through normal conversations between the interviewer and the interviewee. In contrast to this, semi-structured interview involves preparing interview guides prior to the interview. The questions act only as guiding questions giving the interviewer more freedom to ask whatever question he/she feels is appropriate to obtain the information relevant to the topic under investigation. In contrast to the informal and semi-structured interview approaches, standard open-ended interviews involve asking questions which are written precisely without any changes. This type of interview involves different research respondents individually answering to the same list of questions (Mathie & Carnozzi, 2005).

For the present study, questions asked during the interviews were just guiding questions. These were prepared prior to asking them and were either reworded or changed when dealing with

different participants. The researcher had chosen to use semi-structured interview due to the fact that different officials work under different governing structures and also due to the nature of the topic (most officials regard the topic as sensitive). Semi-structured interview gave respondents the flexibility to talk on issues surrounding the topic. The flexible nature of semi-structured interviews also meant that questions asked can be reworded, for clarity purposes, and allowed the interviewer to raise any issues that were relevant for the research, yet not thoroughly covered by the interviewee. In this sense, the researcher was given the space to converse and interact freely and to follow up on issues relevant for the topic under investigation.

A tape recorder was used during the interviews. The use of a tape recorder during the interview was necessary for a number of reasons. Firstly, recording during the interview sessions had ensured that no discussion is ignored. The exact conversation can also be retrieved after the interview had been conducted. Secondly, the tape recorder ensured there was interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee and that the interviewer does not spend too much time head- down in writing.

The researcher had conducted the interviews during a high level ministerial meeting hosted by the Secretariat of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) in Apia, Samoa in 2013. The time and venue was identified as most suitable as it was a time where all officials came together in one locale. In addition to this, officials who attended the meeting were the key officials involved in climate finance. These officials were able to give invaluable information for this research. The meeting was therefore, the best time to conduct such studies, especially as it covers a number of PICs. This approach had to be taken as more funds would have been needed to cover each country individually.

3.3: Sample Size

Semi-structured interview was the main means of primary data collection for this research. Semi- structured interviews had been conducted with seventeen individual officials. Four of the officials involved in this study are each from the four regional organizations (SPREP, SPC, PIFS and USP), eleven officials are representatives of eleven different countries in the region and two

officials (from the USP-EUGCCA Project) representing three different communities in Fiji. The four regional organisations were selected due to their role in climate change finance. All four organisations are greatly involved in the mobilization and management of climate finance (see Chapter 4 for specific mandates) and further play an important role in coordinating regional efforts to assist PICs in adapting to climate change.

3.4: Secondary/Desk Survey

Secondary research, also known as a desktop survey, was a strategy employed as part of this thesis. This strategy involved revisiting already existing information and further using them to assist in the construction of new knowledge (what constitutes ‘research’). For this thesis, information was sourced from online web pages, published articles as well as unpublished information. The information collected through this method are used to validate and support (or criticize) the information collected in the semi-structured interviews.

The USP-EUGCCA Project Community component based in Fiji will be used as a case-study to measure effectiveness at the community level. For this, secondary sources of information, obtained from the project’s community coordinator and Monitoring and Evaluation officer, including evaluation reports and audio recordings from the communities will be used.

3.5: Data Analysis

The primary information collected from the semi-structured interviews was analysed qualitatively. Burnard et al. (2008) discussed two fundamental ways of analysing qualitative data. These included a ‘deductive approach’ and an “inductive approach”. The deductive approach is commonly used where the researcher has a predetermined framework, also in cases where the researcher is already aware of probable participant responses. In contrast to this, the inductive approach involves analysing qualitative data with limited or no predetermined theory or framework. This approach lets the data speak for itself.

This research employed an inductive approach whereby information is collected through semi- structured interviews. Transcribed scripts were later coded into categories or themes; an inductive approach commonly referred to as “Thematic Content Analysis” (Burnard et al., 2008; Virginia & Victoria, 2008). A software known as NVivo was used to transcribe and code the audio recordings from the interviews (refer to Section 3.5.2 for further information on NVivo).

3.5.1: Thematic Content Analysis

Thematic content analysis is a widely used technique in qualitative research (Braun & Clark, 2006; Olivera et al., 2013). Various literatures had distinguished between a “Content Analysis” and a “Thematic Analysis”. Content analysis is sometimes referred to as thematic analysis, however, Vaimoradi et al., (2013) have noted that although the two can be interchangeably used, thematic analysis is a purely qualitative approach while content analysis can analyse data both qualitatively and quantitatively. The two approaches when interchangeably used are referred to as ‘thematic content analyses”. Both approaches are similar in that they begin data analysis by coding interview scripts and categorizing them into themes or categories.

A thematic content analysis was chosen as the best technique to use in this study as it involved the use of semi-structured, open-ended questions and audio recordings. Respondents were able to share their perception more openly. There were similar issues raised, however, expressed differently. Rather than discussing them individually, the researcher had decided to combine them into themes. This enabled the researcher to come up with broad themes. Since the themes are presented quantitatively in tabular and graphical forms (see Chapter 5), combining both content and thematic techniques of analysis was seen as relevant for this study.

3.5.2: NVivo Software Package

A Qualitative Data Analysis Software Package known as “NVivo” was used to code transcribed information obtained from the interviews carried out. NVivo is a software that can be used for both qualitative and mixed methods research. The software is designed to handle non-numeric

data such as interviews, open-ended survey responses, literature reviews and web pages (QSR International, 2014).

A recorder was used to record all conversations. These recordings were later manually transcribed. After all recordings were transcribed, the scripts were then manually imported into the NVivo software for analysis. The software helps with ease of coding for common words and issues that were raised during the interview.

When all the information had been coded, they were then classified into broad categories, also referred to as ‘themes’. Themes emerged when all the interviews were coded for common words and phrases and also from common issues raised across the respondents. Software packages had helped the researcher with ease of coding, however, as noted by Bazeley and Jackson (2013), the use of such software should not “supplement one’s own ability to learn from the data”. It is thus considered important that the perception of the researcher on the topic be deemed important in data analysis, provided it is based on sound judgment.

3.6: Research Ethics

In any research, it is vital for the researcher to take into consideration any ethical issues relating to the nature of the topic under investigation.

There are no internationally agreed ethical standards in research. However, there are three main issues that are mostly considered by research institutions, organizations and in many ethical research discourses. These issues include: codes and consent, confidentiality and trust. Codes and consent can also be regarded as ‘informed consent’. In this sense, researchers need to clarify to their subjects that they are being researched. Informants should be made aware of the nature of the research and their right to withdraw from the research should they wish to do so. Confidentiality should ensure that the subject’s identity and places and locations of the research be kept anonymous. Trust on the other hand, should ensure that a good relationship exists between the researcher and the participants (Seale et al., 2002).

Ethical Issue is regarded as highly important in this study, due to the nature of the topic. In this study, respondents were made aware of the nature of the research and that the information they provided will go towards the research and will not be used for any other purpose. A confidentiality agreement (provided in the appendices section) was signed by participants in this research. By signing the confidentiality agreement, respondents agreed that all information provided would be kept confidential and that they could withdraw from the study whenever they wished to. This agreement also ensured that all participants remained anonymous and all information pertaining to them was confidential and would, by no means be made available to anyone other than the researcher. It was also agreed that all recordings from the interviews will be destroyed three months after this research was complete. This would ensure that confidentially was maintained throughout.

3.7: Limitations to the Research

There are research limitations to this study. Most of the limitations to this research were experienced during the data collection and analysis phases. A great limiting factor was time. This is not unexpected, especially when dealing with very busy officials. Officials are often busy and are available for interviews only for a short time; because of this some interviews were only brief. Busy officials also mean that they schedule your interview sessions. This also takes up time as the interviewer will have to stick to the interviewees timing.

Another limiting factor was the perceived sensitivity of the topic. Some officials who would have given invaluable insight to the topic felt that the topic was a bit too volatile and therefore refused to take part in the research. Others who took part willingly did so upon the agreement that confidentiality would be maintained throughout the research. Also, because of the perceived sensitivity of the research, some of those interviewed may have held back some information and insights. This is understandable looking at it from a professional working perspective and the various codes of conduct officials are subjected to. However, such factors also add to hindering aid/development effectiveness in the region as they stop the much needed feedback loop that will drive “accountability” preached through the Paris principles and the Cairns Compact.

3.8: Chapter Conclusion

This chapter had outlined the methodologies employed in this study. Data was obtained from both semi-structured interviews and through the use of secondary surveys. Semi-structured interviews had been conducted to get primary information from officials who are dealing with aid for climate change in the region. The secondary research was incorporated mainly to see the status of the PICs in the overall aid effectiveness discourse.

Data analysis, although qualitative, were later presented in tabular and graphical forms. Where graphs are used, numbers were used to denote the number and percentages of respondents responding to a particular issue. Since both ‘descriptions’ and ‘numbers’ were used, the researcher had decided to employ a ‘Thematic Content Analysis’.

Respondent confidentiality will be maintained due to the nature of the research. As outlined in section 3.7. There are limitations to this study. Despite these limitations, the researcher was able to compile the primary data into meaningful insights on aid effectiveness for climate change adaptation in the region. The researcher has outlined the limitations encountered to inform future research into this topic.

CHAPTER 4 - ROLE OF SELECTED REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC

4.0: Chapter Introduction

Four officials representing four regional organizations (PIFS, SPC, SPREP and USP) were interviewed for their perception on the effectiveness of aid for climate adaptation in the region. These officials have great experience serving regional interests internationally but also assist national governments locally on important development issues, particularly climate change.

All of the four selected regional organisations involved in this study are members of the “Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific” collectively known as the “CROP” Agencies. As such, it is important that their roles are outlined in this study.

This chapter will explore the role of the four regional organisations involved in this study, particularly their role in relation to climate change and overall development in the region. The existence of these organisations makes up an important form of regionalism. The next section will briefly discuss the origins of regionalism in the South Pacific. Sections that will follow will explore further the role of the four regional organisations that have been chosen for this study.

4.1: The Origins of Regionalism in the South Pacific.

The “South Pacific” or “Pacific Islands Region”, as now widely referred to, was a form of regionalism conceived as a post war ‘experiment’. Although the idea of regionalism is becoming increasingly acceptable in the region, its initial stages came about as an experiment by the former colonisers of the region (Fry, 1997).

According to Fry (1997), the six colonisers in the Pacific Islands Region (New Zealand, Australia, France, Netherlands, Britain and the United States) initiated the idea of regionalism with the objective of “creating a sense of region among themselves and to be seen as doing so by the international community they also decided to encourage the participation of Pacific Islanders in this regional project”. The islanders on the other hand, viewed regionalism differently. From

the islanders’ perspective, the primary aim of regionalism is to promote economic development (Herr, 1986). Nevertheless, the dealings of the colonial rulers resulted in the establishment of a regional entity and the region’s first regional organisation known as the South Pacific Commission (SPC) (see below for a broader discussion of SPC). Although the former colonisers initially had more influence over the Commission, the mid-1960s saw the island nations and territories in the region taking actions to gain more representation in SPC. Despite this, regionalism in the Pacific Islands Region exists with heavy influence from the former colonizers often putting the island nations at a disadvantage (Hau'ofa, 1998).

SPC was the first regional organization to be set up. Having been created as a non-political body and often heavily influenced by the former colonizers, indigenous leaders saw a need for a further body to address political issues, the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Commission (SPEC), now known as the “Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat” (PIFS), was thus created. The formation of PIFS had enabled indigenous leaders to have a better representation, partly in matters of regional interest but more importantly in the politics of the region. The influential power of indigenous leaders was soon realized. This paved way for the formation of more regional organisations in the South Pacific. To date, the South Pacific Region is “shaping itself into a region of organisations, a region of sub-regions, and a region of communities” (Fry, 1981; Rolfe, 2007).

4.2: The Role of Regional Organisations in the PICs.

Regional cooperation is seen as essential, to a certain extent, in addressing the various modes of vulnerability that PICs are faced with (for example, external shocks and environmental change), but to a larger extent contributes to the security of island nations. Regionalism further ensures collective and combined voice in international discussions. Regional cooperation can “promote economic development, increase the degree of control over the economy, and reduce the likelihood of external influence over the policies chosen to pursue different paths to national development” (Axline, 1989).

The various roles of the four selected regional organizations can be fully explained by the different mandates they serve and their mission and vision statements. Although all of them are regional, the countries they represent are not uniform.

These organizations were all set up in the mid-1900s and late 20th century during a time when other issues were considered much more important than climate change itself. Climate change was not seen as a pressing issue to tackle and only became important in the late 1900s. This was when the region fully felt and realized the impacts that climate change poses on the sovereignty and state of countries in the region (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014d).

Regional Organisations rely on both the national governments they serve and other development partners in the region for financial assistances. Generally, SPREP receives the bulk of its funding from AusAID and through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and because Australia has withdrawn its “climate change” assistance in the region (with the Abbott Administration), SPREP now has less support from AusAID. PIFS on the other hand, receives funding from multiple development partners with the bulk of the funding from Australia and New Zealand while USP, through the Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE- SD), has received most of its funding from the European Union (AusAID used to be a major donor before the Abbott Administration). It is also important to highlight that the member countries also provide funding, known as “member contributions”, to all these regional organisations.

Overall functioning of the regional organisations, particularly addressing climate change, cannot be effectively addressed without the support of these development partners (refer to section 2.5 for details of different financing modalities used).

4.2.1: The Secretariat of the South Pacific Community (SPC)

SPC has its history dating back to 1947. As previously mentioned, this organization was the first regional organization in the South Pacific and was formally known as the ‘South Pacific Commission’ after it gained its legal status in 1947. The Agreement Establishing the South

Pacific Commission was signed in Australia on the 6th of February 1947 in what became known as the ‘Canberra Agreement’. Governments that were parties to this convention were Australia, the French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, who by far are metropolitan countries (Fry, 1981; Secretariat of the South Pacific Community, 2013).

According to the Canberra Agreement, the organization was established following a desire to encourage and strengthen international cooperation in promoting the economic and social welfare and advancement of the peoples of the non-self-governing territories in the South Pacific Region, who, during that period were administered by parties to the Canberra Agreement. This was, however, altered to include other self-governing states in the later years (Secretariat of the South Pacific Community, 1947).

For the PICs, Samoa was the first independent state to join SPC after it gained independence in 1962. Other island nations joined soon after gaining independence. All 22 countries in the South Pacific Region joined the Commission in 1983 following the 23rd South Pacific Conference held in Saipan. It was also during this conference that the, then, members to the Commission reaffirmed the Commission’s non-political nature (Secretariat of the South Pacific Community, 2007; 2013). The organization’s representation grew bigger as more countries became members. Other regional entities merged with SPC, further broadening the organization’s role in the region.

The organization’s mandate as per the Agreement Establishing SPC clearly outlined SPC’s role as follows:

“SPC is a technical assistance, training and research organization that supports the development of Pacific Island Countries and Territories.” (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2012).

In 2010 the South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA) merged with SPC followed by The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) in 2011. Important issues to address under the commission are continuously presented by members during a conference referred to as ‘The South Pacific Conference’ (Secretariat of the South Pacific Community, 1947).

During the time of the Agreement Establishing SPC, members recognized important issues that should be urgently addressed under the commission to include: Agriculture, Economics, Education and Social Development, Fisheries, Forestry, Health and Medicine, Labour, and Library. The issues to tackle under these broad areas were identified and although the issue of climate change was not explicitly mentioned, it became important in the later years. To date, SPC has seven technical divisions namely: Geoscience Division, Economic Development Division, Social Development Division, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems Division, Land Resources Division, Public Health Division and Statistics for Development Division (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2011; Secretariat of the South Pacific Community, 1947).

An important division within SPC is the Division for Applied Geoscience and Technology (SOPAC). SOPAC has its history dating back to the year 1972, initially set up as a regional project carried out by the United Nation Development Programme (UNDP). In 1990, SOPAC became an intergovernmental organization initially working on assessing deep sea mineral resources and hydrocarbon potential. The organization later expanded its role to include the assessment of the potential of ocean and onshore mineral resources including coastal protection assessment and geo-hazard assessment. The organization merged into SPC in 2011 following the call from leaders in the region, further broadening its mandate to include water, wastewater, energy, and disaster risk management. Upon its emergence into SPC, SOPAC works purposely to fulfil the overall Mission of SPC. The Division now works on three technical programmes (Islands and Oceans, Water and Sanitation, and Disaster Reduction) within SPC. Specific services that are provided under the three technical programmes are: Natural Resource Economics, GIS and Remote Sensing, Technical Equipment and Services, Data management,

and Publications and Library (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2011). The role of SOPAC and SPC towards climate change becomes important as the region moves towards integrating climate change and disaster risk management.

SPC acts mainly as an implementing agency. The organization, with assistance from its development partners, is engaged in various climate change activities. These activities, depending on the type and nature of the activity, are administered by the different divisions within the organization. Specific climate change projects implemented by the SPC and other partners are listed in the table below: Table 4.1: Climate change projects implemented by SPC and development partners.

Project Details Implemented in partnership with Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit Coping with Climate Change in the (GIZ) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry Pacific Island Region (CCCPIR) for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Global Climate Change Alliance: Pacific Implemented by SPC and funded by the European Small Island States (GCCA: PSIS) Union (EU) International Climate Change Adaptation Implemented by SPC and funded by the Initiative Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) Vegetation and Land Cover Mapping and Implemented by SPC and funded by the United Improving Food Security for Building States Agency for International Development Resilience to a Changing Climate in (USAID) Pacific Island Communities

Source: Adapted from SPC. int

The CCCPIR is a 19.2 million Euro Programme funded by GIZ (from January 2009 – December 2015) aimed at:

“strengthening the capacities of Pacific Island Countries (PICs) and regional organisations to cope with the anticipated effects of climate change that will affect communities across the region.” (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2011)

The programme has six components as listed below:

- Component 1: Strengthening regional advisory and management capacity. - Component 2: Mainstreaming climate considerations and adaptation strategies. - Component 3: Implementing adaptation and mitigation measures. - Component 4: Sustainable tourism and climate change. - Component 5: Sustainable energy management. - Component 6: Climate change education.

According to a project brief released in 2013, the CCCPIR “aligns with the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006-2015. SPC is responsible for the implementation of the six components listed above (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2013).

The GCCA: PSIS is a 11.4 million Euro Project funded by EU through the GCCA which acts as the main “implementing channel for the EU fast start commitments related to climate change adaptation” (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2011). The project time frame is from 19 July 2011to 19 November 2014. The objective of the project is to:

“support the governments of nine smaller Pacific Island states, namely Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Tonga and Tuvalu, in their efforts to tackle the adverse effects of climate change.” (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2011).

SPC was responsible for implementing the four project components listed below:

- Mainstreaming climate change into national and/or sector response strategies. - Advancing well-articulated sectoral adaptation strategies that address budget support criteria. - Implementing national climate change adaptation projects. - Delivering streamlined technical assistance that supports national adaptation responses and is delivered by regional organizations in a collaborative manner.

The International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative builds resilience in three specific sectors namely: fisheries, agriculture and health (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2011).

When SPC was conceived as a regional organization, the co-founders labelled the organization as a “non-political body”. This branding still portrayed to this very day, however, has existed as a myth, firstly because the organisation’s very establishment was never “non-political” and secondly because they deal with national governments and other development partners which often involves a lot of politics.

4.2.2: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS).

The South Pacific Forum, as it was formally known, was established in 1971 as the third regional organization in the South Pacific (Pacific Islands Producers’ Association - PIPA was the second regional organization). PIFS is an international body established through a treaty. Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Cook Islands, Nauru, Tonga and Western Samoa were the founding members. The Secretariat to the South Pacific Forum was initially established in 1972 as a trade bureau, because of this, the organization was known as ‘The South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co- operation (SPEC). In 2000, the organization then changed its name to ‘Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat’ (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014d). The name change is reflective of the nature of the organization; an organization that addresses the political issues facing the governments of the countries that are members to the forum.

The secretariat’s mandate is agreed upon during the annual Forum Leaders’ high level Ministerial meetings and delivered through communiqués. Having a mandate that is being updated annually has provided the organization with the ability to tackle both immediate and emerging issues that are being faced by the region.

In 1971 when the organization was first established issues that were considered under the Forum were those concerning trade, shipping, tourism and education (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 1971). The next high level ministerial meeting and the first to be held in one of the Pacific Islands proceeded a year after. This meeting highlighted the same issues discussed in the previous meeting, reemphasizing the importance of regional consultation, cooperation and collaboration towards the social and economic development in the region. A very important issue discussed during this meeting was the issue of ‘Nuclear Testing’ that was being carried out by France in the Pacific. Although this issue was discussed alongside other pressing issues, it became at the top of the agenda in the fourth and fifth meetings that were held in Apia, Samoa in 1973 and in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands in 1974 respectively (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 1972; 1973). Climate Change was never discussed under the forum meetings until 1988 during the nineteenth ministerial meeting held in Nuku’alofa in Tonga. In 1988, Forum leaders realized the risk that climate change poses to the Pacific Islands. The issue of climate change and sea level rise were brought to the table in the years following 1988. During this period climate change was considered an environmental issue that leaders should address. In 1993, Sustainable Development was high on the agenda and as leaders prepared for the Global Conference for Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (GCSDSIDS), which was held in Barbados in 1994, leaders categorized climate change and sea level rise as “among the most serious threats to the Pacific region and the survival of some island states”. Climate change, however, was still discussed under the umbrella of “Environmental Issues” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014d).

To ensure the successful implementation of the outcomes of the Barbados Programme of Action, Pacific Islands’ leaders required some form of external assistance. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) offered to assist the region in this area. In 1995, leaders called on GEF to assist with the implementation of activities and plans identified under the UNFCCC. Leaders saw the

urgent need for adaptation to the negative impacts of climate change. The Forum commended a preliminary portfolio of projects to the GEF for its support (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 1995). In 1996, Forum leaders reiterated their concern about climate change. At the twenty- seventh ministerial meeting held in Majuro in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, leaders categorized climate change as a ‘crucial issue’ within the Pacific Islands region. This came after the IPCC released its second assessment report confirming, with scientific evidence, human footprints in the global greenhouse effect (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 1996).

At the 1997 Forum Leaders Meeting, concerns had been raised surrounding the need to cut down on green-house gas emissions. Leaders adopted a statement on climate change known as the “Forum Leaders Retreat Statement on Climate Change”. This statement highlighted the need to push for mitigation in the UNFCCC negotiations (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 1997). Another statement reinforcing the need for developed countries to cut down on emissions was developed in the 1998 meeting. In 1999, leaders called on all member countries to implement the Buenos Aires Plan of Action (Adopted in 1978 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, at the United Nations Conference on Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC)) (United Nations, 1978). TCDC was aimed mainly at technical cooperation among developing countries. Forum leaders saw cooperation as essential in addressing climate change. The 1999 meeting also highlighted the need for capacity building in the region in order to better understand climate change (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 1998; 1999) .

The start of the 21st century came with so many development challenges and more commitments. At the international level, world leaders adopted the “Millennium Declaration” which contained the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). At the regional level, Forum leaders held their first meeting under a new name - “The Pacific Islands Forum”. Pertaining development issues of the region were forwarded to the table again. With climate change, the past decade had focused mainly on the Kyoto Protocol and need for Forum Island Countries to ratify and advocate on the need to cut down on green-house gas emissions. A negative impact of climate change that was of concern then had been “sea level rise”, particularly its impact on the low lying atolls and island nations. These same issues were re-highlighted in years 2000 and 2001, with the forum communiqué explicitly citing climate change as “human induced”. In 2001 leaders raised the

need to encourage renewable energy but more importantly to ensure that any effort carried out in the region, with regards to addressing climate change, be COORDINATED using the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP). The important roles of the regional bodies towards climate change were being laid down by Forum leaders. Leaders realised the importance of coordination towards climate change activities in the region.

In the 2002 communiqué, Climate Change was addressed by leaders under the umbrella of “Environment and Conservation”. Adaptation to climate change started to emerge more in the discussion. “The Forum recognized the importance of mainstreaming adaptation within finance and economic planning at their national level and called for mobilisation of resources for adaptation and the consideration of all the implications of adaptation needs, options and requirements” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2002). Leaders particularly welcomed the need for further strengthening of regional coordination and support in addressing climate change in the region. Leaders also highlighted the need to comprehensively review the CROP working arrangements in relation to and to cater for climate change (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2000; 2001; 2002; United Nations, 2000).

Apart from the need to mitigate green-house gases, year 2003 had called for more coordination at both the regional and national levels. Leaders were also concerned with implementing climate related issues identified in the Barbados Programme of Action (BPoA) and to priorities adaptation with financial assistance from GEF and other partners (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2003). It was evident at this stage that climate finance would be critical for the region.

In 2004, Forum Island Countries (FICs) discussed a new plan, known as the “Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration”. This Plan came about following the Auckland Declaration (in April 2004) to strengthen regional cooperation and integration and was endorsed by FICs’ leaders in 2005. The Pacific Plan is a ten year plan, “intended to be the main instrument for promoting the new Pacific vision, deliver real benefits for the Pacific peoples by proposing concrete plans for the enhancement of economic growth and sustainable development” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2004). The goal of the Pacific Plan is to:

“Enhance and stimulate economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security for Pacific countries through regionalism.” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2004)

The Pacific Plan had been designed to align with the BPoA and the Mauritius Strategy of Implementation (a strategy that precedes the BPoA). Broad strategic objectives of the Plan includes: Economic Growth, Sustainable Development, Good Governance, and Security. The initial Plan was later reviewed and updated in 2007. The Plan was aimed at increasing cooperation with all stakeholders engaged in the region. It also has elements specifically aimed at climate change in the region and the need to “facilitate international financing for sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection, and climate change in the Pacific including through the Global Environment Fund”. The Pacific Plan also made way for leaders to update the organisation’s purpose and functions and because it is aimed at regional cooperation and integration, leaders saw the need to increase the Forum’s membership (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2005; 2007b).

Leaders saw the Pacific Plan as having the necessary ingredients for addressing issues faced by the region. For climate change in particular, a framework known as the “Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change (PIFACC), 2006-2015” was endorsed in 2005 during the forum leader’s meeting. This framework served as a “regional mechanism to support responses to climate change and related concerns” over the ten year period. During the 2005 meeting, “leaders also welcomed a meeting by all heads of CROP organisations to strengthen joint programming among themselves to better provide regional support for mitigating and adapting to climate change” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2005).

In 2006, leaders acknowledged the various progresses made under the Plan, however, called for further regional cooperation and integration. Leaders also noted that climate change is a priority area to address under the Pacific Plan and called on SPREP to ensure progress on the implementation of on-the-ground activities as mandated by leaders. In 2007, leaders further reiterated the negative impacts of climate change in the region, particularly the effects of sea level rise on the low lying atolls and island nations (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2006; 2007c).

In 2008, FICs leaders met in Alofi, Niue under the theme “Climate Change”. This had shown the urgency of climate change in the region. At the meeting, leaders’ concerns were also on the progress made so far in achieving the MDGs. Evaluation had shown that the region is still far from meeting the objectives of the MDGs. On top of this, priority areas were identified as necessary to further implement the Pacific Plan. Climate Change, among other issues, was re- highlighted as a ‘serious’ issue to address under the Plan. During this meeting, leaders acknowledged the financial assistances given by Australia and New Zealand and welcomed new initiatives such as the Japanese Cool Earth Promotion Programme and the European Union- Global Climate Change Alliance (EU-GCCA). The need for more climate finance, particularly for adaptation, was also brought up during the discussion. An important aspect of this meeting was the call made by leaders to “establish or strengthen and facilitate regional climate change coordination mechanisms” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2008).

During the 2009 Forum leaders meeting, leaders referred to climate change as the “great challenge of our time”. Leaders adopted what was known as the “Pacific Leaders Call for Action on Climate Change”. Climate finance was then discussed in great detail. Leaders expressed the need to improve access to climate finance in the region and gave PIFS the role to explore possible mechanisms to ensure ease of access to and management of climate finance. “Leaders agreed that regional coordination of climate change financing under the Cairns Compact will be critical to the effectiveness of aid delivery and utilisation and agreed to boost the capacity of the Forum Secretariat to perform this function” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2009a; 2010a).

Leaders referred to climate change as the “single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific” in 2011. The Secretary General of the United Nations (UN), Ban Ki-Moon, visited the region in what was referred to as a “historic visit” to experience first-hand the impacts of climate change in the region. Adaptation and climate financing towards capacity building were at the top of the discussions surrounding climate change. PIFS was again tasked to explore a number of options and modalities including how they operate at the national level to “assist FICs to effectively access and manage international climate change finance” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2011b).

In responding to the directives from leaders, the PIFS developed a “multi-tiered, multi- stakeholder approach” which focused on various efforts as listed below:

(i) identify relevant and appropriate climate change financing sources; (ii) effectively harness and utilise climate change resources in an informed way and using strengthened country systems, wherever possible, following principles of Aid Effectiveness and Development Coordination; (iii) address the necessary institutional and acute human capacity constraints facing most FICs, in particular SIS, to deal with climate change implications and (iv) Identify and/or strengthen delivery of climate change resources through proven and appropriate modalities commensurate with absorptive capacities of FICs.

According to the forum communique, in 2012, “Leaders tasked the Forum Secretariat, in collaboration with other CROP agencies and development partners, to continue to assist FICs in effectively responding to climate change, including through adaptation measures, mitigation efforts, climate change financing, capacity building, and international negotiations” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2012)

In 2013, leaders endorsed another Declaration known as the “Majuro Declaration for Climate Leadership”. According to the 2013 Forum communique: “The Declaration is intended to highlight the Leaders‟ strong political commitment to be the region of Climate Leaders, and is an effort to spark a new wave of climate leadership that accelerates the reduction and phasing down of greenhouse gas pollution worldwide” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2013).

In 2014, leaders adopted yet another new framework called the “Framework for Pacific Regionalism”. This framework replaces the “Pacific Plan”. Leaders once again reiterated the importance of coordination in implementing this new framework. According to a Forum Leaders’ Statement in 2014, “Deeper regionalism will help increase market opportunities, improve service delivery, and ensure good governance for Pacific people” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014b; 2014c).

The vision of the regional framework is:

“Our Pacific Vision is for a region of peace, harmony, security, social inclusion, and prosperity, so that all Pacific people can lead free, healthy, and productive lives.” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014c).

Specific Objectives of the new framework are as follows:

- Sustainable development that combines economic, social and cultural development in ways that improve livelihoods and well-being and use the environment sustainably. - Economic growth that is inclusive and equitable. - Strengthened governance, legal, financial, and administrative systems. - Security that ensures stable and safe human, environmental and political conditions for all.

Climate change, being the “single greatest threat” to the PICs has also been prioritized not only in the previously mentioned frameworks but also under the current framework for regionalism. As for the role of PIFs, the organization to date is responsible for all issues relating to climate financing.

4.2.3: The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).

SPREP was formally established as an intergovernmental organization in 1990 following the realization of the importance of preserving and conserving the environment of the South Pacific Region. The organization was formed following a decision made during a conference on Human Development and the South Pacific held at Rarotonga, Cook Islands on the 8-11thof March 1982. The organisation was formally recognised as an autonomous body in 1990. Prior to it being formally recognized as an autonomous body, SPREP had been involved in carrying out environmental activities in the region under SPC. As noted in Article 2 of the “Agreement Establishing SPREP” (1993):

“The purposes of SPREP are to promote cooperation in the South Pacific region and to provide assistance in order to protect and improve its environment and to ensure sustainable

development for present and future generations. SPREP shall achieve these purposes through the Action Plan adopted from time to time by the SPREP Meeting, setting the strategies and objectives of SPREP” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1993).

Upon its recognition as an autonomous body, SPREP was regarded as the leading environmental agency in the South Pacific Region. Soon after it gained its legal status in 1990, an action plan (Action Plan for Managing the Environment of the South Pacific, 1991 – 1995) was adopted by parties (American Samoa, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna) who were members to the Agreement Establishing SPREP. This action plan was the second action plan since SPREP’s inception in 1982. While the emphasis was highly on other pressing environmental issues such as marine pollution and conservation of biological diversity, global climate change was highlighted as one of the programme areas the organization will address. This was so because during the 20th century, human-induced climate change was becoming much more evident and regional leaders had identified climate change as an issue to tackle in series of annual Forum leaders meetings. It was agreed then that the implementation of the activities should be carried out by the organization with financial support from other environmental organizations and donor agencies (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1992).

Ecological Sustainable Development was high on the agenda of the Action Plan (1991-1995). The goal of the action plan was:

“To assist South Pacific Countries to protect and improve their shared environment and manage their resources to enhance the quality of life for present and future generations” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1992).

The Action Plan listed nine programme activities that were seen by members to be important. This included: Conservation of Biological Diversity, Global Change, Environmental Management and Planning, Coastal Management and Planning, Prevention and Management of Pollution, Planning and Response to Pollution Emergencies, Environmental Education and Training, Environmental Information, and Regional Environmental Concerns (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1992). Climate Change surfaced as the second

important programme under the Action Plan. SPREP’s goal under the climate change programme was:

“To develop and implement a regional programme to assist members to understand and avoid or mitigate the potential adverse impacts of climate change and to contribute to international efforts to limit human-induced climate change through appropriate measures” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1992).

The third Action Plan for the next four year period (1997-2000) was agreed upon by members in Apia, Samoa. This action plan was aimed mainly at ‘Capacity Building’ on key environmental issues in the region. The programmes to be carried out in this period were influenced by Article 21 of the BPoA, the Cairo Programme of Action on Population and Development, and the conventions on climate change, biodiversity and ocean management and pollution. It had been clearly outlined in the action plan that SPREP will be responsible for the “coordination of regional initiatives and will support country participation in regional international agreements, and action programmes to protect the environment”. It was also outlined that “all national implementation should be carried out by the countries themselves with the Secretariat performing a role as facilitator or coordinator. A “well focused coordinated approach” had been identified as integral to environmental protection and overall development in the region. The secretariat had outlined two important guiding principles to effectively implement the plan. These were: International Cooperation and Regional Co-operation and Co-ordination (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1997). For climate change in particular, the objective under this plan was:

“To understand and respond to climate change, particularly through integrated coastal management” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1997).

Capacity building was still at the centre of the action plan for the next four years (2001-2004). The action plan highlighted four “Key Result Areas (KRAs)” the Secretariat proposed to work on. These included: nature conservation, pollution prevention, climate change and variability, and economic development. The specific objective under climate change was:

“To improve the Pacific Island members’ understanding of and strengthen their capacity to respond to climate change, climate variability and sea level rise.” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2000).

For the objective above, issues and expected outcomes were as outlined in the Table 4.2.

Action Plan 2005-2009 outlined the proposed plans for the four year period. SPREP proposed to address: natural resource management, pollution prevention, and climate variability and change, sea level rise and stratospheric ozone depletion. Under climate change, the plan recognized that “among the greatest challenges in the 21st century are the known and potential impacts of climate change and extreme weather events”. For the period of the framework, SPREP members identified five areas of work, broadly based on capacity building, awareness raising, research, policy advice and the phasing out of ozone depleting substances. The action plan further outlined that in order for the plan to be successful coordination and harmonization was required (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2000).

Action Plan for the period 2011-2015 made special mention of the increasing pressure on the environment of the Pacific Islands. The following is a line extracted from the plan:

“Foremost among the threats is climate change, a deeply troubling issue for the environmental, economic, and social viability of Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs).Climate change alone is a serious challenge that demands concerted action.” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2011b).

SPREP’s role was again outlined in this action plan “As the regional organisation charged with the protection and sustainable development of the region’s environment, SPREP has been at the forefront of regional efforts to manage these environmental issues”.

Table 4.2: Specific objectives and their expected outcomes of SPREP Action Plan (2001- 2004).

Issues/Objectives Expected Outcomes

Strengthened Improved weather forecasting and prediction. Meteorological Services

Reduced uncertainty in the use of climate predictions and scenarios. Understanding Climate Change and Climate Increased participation in global observation networks. Variability Increased understanding of climate change and variability among all stakeholders.

Maintenance of existing observational networks and strategic placement of future facilities. Sea Level Rise Improved techniques for detecting relative and absolute sea level rise and improved models.

Improved analysis of impacts and vulnerability.

Impacts and Improved understanding of seasonal and inter-annual variation and Vulnerability well as longer-term changes.

Adaptation and Effective adaptation and response measures. Mitigation Reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Improved linkages between science and policy.

Policy Development on Increased mainstreaming of climate change and variability. Climate Change Regional and international policy responsive to Pacific Islands’ priorities.

Source: Adapted from SPREP’s Action Plan 2001-2004.

At the same time SPREP has provided national-level technical advice, programme support, human and institutional capacity building, and coordinated regional responses to global issues and international agreement…” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2011).

The strategic plan for 2011 to 2015 was different from the previous plans as it served as a “single integrated plan”. The plan contained identified priorities, proposed strategies and actions for addressing these priorities over the five year period. Four strategic priorities were identified by members. These included: Climate Change, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management, Waste Management and Pollution Control, and Environmental Monitoring and Governance. The plan is a strategic framework in itself and very comprehensive. The organization has to ensure that the plan achieves other existing frameworks and plans. For climate change in particular, SPREP will have to ensure that it achieves the overall aim for the plan including the PIFACC. The goal under the current strategic plan is that:

“By 2015, all Members will have strengthened capacity to respond to climate change through policy improvement, implementation of practical adaptation measures, enhancing ecosystem resilience to the impacts of climate change, and implementing initiatives aimed at achieving low- carbon development.” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2011).

The Plan identified three priority areas to address during the given term. These included:

- Implementing Adaptation Measures, - Improving Capacity, Knowledge, and Understanding of Climate Change and Risk Reduction and - Contributing to Global Greenhouse Gas Reduction

To date, SPREP is focusing its efforts on three broad areas namely: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Policy and Science. There were programmes and projects carried out under the three areas. For adaptation, there are two main programmes. One programme administered by SPREP is the “National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA)” and the other one is the “Joint National Action Plans (JNAPs)”.

The NAPA was an initiative agreed upon during the COP to the UNFCCC in 2001. The programme is part of the LDC work programme and was intended to help LDCs adapt to the challenges they face due to climate change. According to the UNFCCC, “NAPAs provide a process for the LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to their urgent and immediate

needs with regard to adaptation to climate change” (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2014). Implementation of the NAPA would therefore be funded under the UNFCCC’s Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). In the PICs, not all countries fall under the “LDC” status. Only five countries (Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu) in the region are regarded as LDCs and therefore qualify for this funding (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014).

The JNAPs are plans that were aimed at the integration of climate change and Disaster Risk Management (DRM). The approach of integrating climate change and DRM was considered highly relevant for the PICs due to the close relationship between the two; many disasters relate to climate change and climate change is predicted to further exacerbate disasters. Countries like Tonga and the Republic of the Marshall Islands had already drawn up their JNAPs while countries like the Cook Islands, Niue, Tuvalu and Nauru are in the process of developing theirs. This programme is funded bilaterally by Australia, other regional organisations and the UNDP work as partners in the programme (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014).

The secretariat was also responsible for implementing climate adaptation projects. Table 4.3 outlines some of the donor funded projects.

In terms of mitigation, the SPREP was involved in supporting its member countries with implementing a renewable energy project known as the “Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Project (PIGGAREP)”. With this project, SPREP is providing technical assistance to member countries through various activities (workshops and trainings, reviews and evaluations of energy projects, resource monitoring and feasibility studies and the documentation and dissemination of information). The PIGGAREP is funded by GEF and other co-financing partners. SPREP, together with the UNDP Multi-country office in Samoa, work as implementing partners. The project had been a five year project (started on 9th July 2007). The goal of the project “is the reduction of the growth rate of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel use in the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) through the removal of the barriers to the widespread and cost effective use of feasible Renewable Energy (RE) technologies” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2008; 2014).

Table 4.3: SPREP and donor-support activities.

Adaptation Project Donors/Funders PICs Involved Project Time Frame

Pacific Adaptation to GEF (major funder), Fiji, Palau, Papua New 2009-2013 Climate Change AusAID andUSAID Guinea, Solomon, Cook (PACC) Islands, FSM, Samoa, Tokelau, Vanuatu, Nauru, Niue, Marshall Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati and Tokelau

Asia Pacific ADB, USAid, Ministry Member countries 2009-2012 Adaptation Network of Environment, (APAN) Government of Japan.

USAID Adaptation USAID Kiribati and Solomon Ongoing Project Islands

Nansen Initiative Norway and Cook Islands Ongoing Switzerland

Source: Adapted from SPREP.org

In the area of Policy and Science, the secretariat is assisting PICs develop “National Communications” which are intended “to contribute to the overall global view of the state of the atmosphere in terms of emissions, and to allow Pacific Island Countries to present national circumstances and adaptation requirements for financing”, an obligation under the UNFCCC. The Secretariat assisted member countries with the various FCCC processes and other matters relating to the COP negotiations. A huge milestone was achieved in 2015 whereby the organization was accredited to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an implementing entity. In addition to this, SPREP is also the leading organization supporting PICs in the climate change

negotiations of the UNFCCC. The Secretariat is also responsible for overseeing the implementation and progress of the PIFACC (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014; 2015).

4.2.4: The University of the South Pacific (USP).

The USP is a regional tertiary institution owned by twelve member countries in the South Pacific Region. The university was established in 1968 with a vision to:

“Achieve excellence and innovation for sustainable development of the Pacific Island Countries” (University of the South Pacific, 2013).

USP’s Mission statements are outlined below:

To provide Pacific people with a comprehensive range of excellent and relevant tertiary qualifications. To deliver the benefits of advanced research and its applications. To provide communities and countries in the Pacific region with relevant, cost effective and sustainable solutions, including entrepreneurship, to their main challenges. To be an example of tertiary education for the Pacific Islands in quality, governance, application of technology and collaboration with national tertiary institution (University of the South Pacific, 2013).

The university is a member of the CROP mandated to serve higher level educational needs of its member countries.

Climate change is addressed specifically under the institution’s “Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE-SD)”. PaCE-SD was established following the university’s 1999 Strategic Plan, which was to address issues of environmental sustainability and climate change.

4.3: The Role of the Regional Organizations of the South Pacific in Climate Resource Mobilization and Management.

Regional organizations play varying roles in terms of managing, mobilizing and utilizing financial resources aimed for climate change adaptation in the region. Traditionally these organizations act only as implementing and executing entities, however, their evolution over the years has transformed them to sometimes play the donor role in their web of partnership.

Climate change became the centre of attention for all these organizations in the late 20th century when its impacts were adversely felt in the South Pacific Region and because all the regional organizations exist to serve the interests of the governments they represent; they address similar issues (sometimes overlapping) as dictated by their member countries.

Climate change is a global issue being felt locally and for the South Pacific Region, all countries and territories were among the first to experience the negative impacts of climate change. From late 1980s onwards, leaders voiced the urgency of the problem almost in every meeting and conventions held both internationally and regionally. The regional organizations took this matter very seriously, directing so much effort into addressing the impacts felt both locally and regionally. While this has been seen as a way forward for all the development partners, organisational role can be overlapping at times. The following paragraphs summarize the role of regional organisations towards climate change in the region.

SPC’s work towards climate change in the South Pacific Region is based on the organization’s “Climate Change Engagement Strategy 2011–2015”, which sets out three strategic outcomes. This includes: “Strengthened Capacity of Pacific Island communities to respond effectively to climate change, Climate Change integrated into SPC programmes and operations and Strengthened Partnerships at the regional and internal level” (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2011).

Similarly, SPREP’s assistance towards climate change in the region is outlined in its strategic priority. According to this strategy the organizational goal is to ensure:

“ Members will have strengthened capacity to respond to climate change through policy improvement, implementation of practical adaptation measures, enhancing ecosystem resilience to the impacts of climate change, and implementing initiatives aimed at achieving low-carbon development." (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014).

Under this strategic priority, the Secretariat’s role is to support its members in the planning and implementation stages of necessary adaptation strategies and the integration of climate change considerations into overall planning and development processes at the national level (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2014).

The role of PIFS in the region in relation to climate change gained momentum in 2009 upon the realization that climate change is the region’s greatest threat of that century (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2009b).

In 2009, the following statement was made by the Forum leaders in what was known as the “Call for Action on Climate Change”:

“For Pacific Island states, climate change is the great challenge of our time. It threatens not only our livelihoods and living standards, but the very viability of some of our communities. Though the role of Pacific Island States in the causes of climate change is small, the impact on them is great. Many Pacific people face new challenges in access to water. The security of our communities and the health of populations is placed in greater jeopardy. And some habitats and island states face obliteration.” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2009b).

The Forum Secretariat’s main role is to advocate on the Forum’s political interests both regionally and internationally and has been doing so for issues related to climate change.

USP’s commitment towards climate change, as carried out by PaCE-SD, is to provide capacity building and research on issues surrounding environment and climate change in the region (University of the South Pacific, 2013).

Table 4.4 further outlines the vision and mission statements of these four organisations in relation to climate change.

Table 4.4: Regional organisations' Mission and Vision statements.

Regional Goals/Visions/Mission Statements Organization

Goal: The Goal under the Climate Change Strategic Priority is that "By 2015, all Members will have strengthened capacity to respond to climate change through policy improvement, implementation of practical adaptation measures, enhancing ecosystem resilience to the impacts of climate change, and implementing initiatives aimed at SPREP achieving low-carbon development."

SPC Vision: A secure, resilient and prosperous Pacific Community, whose people are educated and healthy and manage their resources in an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable way.

Goal: Pacific Island countries and territories are able to effectively manage the risks presented by climate change

Mission: to ensure the effective implementation of the Leaders’ decisions for the benefit of the people of the Pacific.

PIFS Goals: are to stimulate economic growth and enhance political governance and security for the region, through the provision of policy advice; and to strengthen regional cooperation and integration through coordinating, monitoring and evaluating implementation of Leaders’ decisions.

Mission: To work with all other relevant sections of the university, local, regional and international organizations and governments to promote climate change adaptation best practices and sustainable development through innovative and cost-effective approaches.

Vision: Our vision is to strive for excellence in sustainable development for pacific island people.

Goals:

- To train future climate leaders with Post Graduate Diploma (PGDip), Master of Science (MSc) and Doctorates (PhD) in climate change. USP - To conduct integrated studies of climate change and sustainable development.

- To improve synergism inside and outside USP in dealing with climate change and promoting sustainable development.

- To promote science-policy interactions and project level involvement among governments, regional partners and USP.

- To enhance local knowledge systems and community based utilization of natural resources towards culturally-appropriate climate adaption and sustainable development pathways.

- To coordinate, stimulate, catalyse and carry out environmental teaching, research and consultancy at USP.

- To facilitate Pacific Island Countries use of USP knowledge and expertise in issues of climate change, environment, sustainable development and resource management.

Source: Adapted from: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (2014a); Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2011); University of the South Pacific (2013) and Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (2014).

It can be seen from Table 4.4 above that the goal of all the four regional organisations is to enhance resilience to climate risks and strengthen adaptation in the region. Capacity building towards climate change is reflected in all four regional organisation goals/missions. While this is important for the region, it further shows the overlapping nature of the work of these organisations. The organisations were initially formed with very clear mandates. However, with climate change the roles of these organisations can become confusing. This may be due to the cross-cutting nature of climate change. Nevertheless, regional organisations need to clearly define their roles in order to avoid duplication and waste of already scarce resources.

4.4: Chapter Conclusion

This chapter outlined the respective roles of PIFS, SPREP, SPC and USP in relation to climate change. The four selected regional organizations play a crucial role in the “South Pacific Regionalism”. These organizations generally serve different mandates however with climate change the goal is to assist member countries adapt to the negative impacts of climate change, which are overlapping in some areas. Their role towards climate change has enabled them to have access to some climate financial assistances. It is because of this that they are interviewed for their perceptions on the effectiveness of aid for climate change.

CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.0: Chapter Introduction

This chapter will provide the results of the primary research conducted through the use of semi- structured interviews. Discussions surrounding the primary findings will also be provided.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, a special characteristic of the region is its lack of institutional capacity. This limitation had meant that only a few officials administer climate finances in the region. This issue is well reflected in a lot of climate change talks in the region. It is evident that the same officials attend to every climate change meetings around the region as well as internationally. This research focuses its attention on these key officials thereby interviewing them for their perceptions on the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation both regionally and nationally.

The next section will provide the findings of the semi-structured interviews. As noted in Chapter 3, a thematic content analysis was carried out. The information provided in this chapter is a result of this analysis. The software package used only allows for the most common words or phrases to emerge as themes. In most instances, the themes do not speak well of the issues raised during the interviews. As a result of this, direct quotes are also provided to back up the main themes that emerged during the data analysis phase.

5.1: Findings of Semi-structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather officials’ perception on the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation in the region. The interviewees (referred herein as ‘respondents’) raised many issues regarding the effectiveness of aid for climate change in- country as well as regionally. It was found that most issues raised were similar across all respondents. Some officials raised concerns that were very specific (not common across all participants), however, very relevant to the topic. Whether it be from the majority of respondents or just one, all important issues will be taken into consideration in this study. Issues that are very

specific, however, important to the topic cannot be ignored either because the respondent said it is important or because the researcher deemed it important.

5.1.1: Effectiveness of Aid for Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific Island Countries.

Respondents were asked to comment on whether aid for climate change adaptation is effective in meeting the adaptation needs of the region. For this question, respondents were asked to share their perceptions on the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation. Figure 5.1 shows how respondents responded to this question.

Figure 5.1: Pie chart showing the percentage of responses to the effectiveness of aid in the PICs.

9% 18%

Yes No Partly 37% Not Sure

36%

The pie chart above showed that more than 50% of the participants interviewed think that aid is either ‘partly effective’ or ‘not effective’ in addressing the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable in the region. 18% of the respondents are not sure whether aid is effective whereas

9% answered ‘yes’ to this question. This finding is very important as it answered the first objective of this study - “How effective is aid for climate change in the region?”

There are normally sets of indicators used by donors, the regional organisations, national governments and other development partners when evaluating the effectiveness of their work in the region. Instead of using a specific set of indicators, the researcher decided to pose this question to facilitate dialogue around the question. In this way respondents have more freedom to share their perceptions based on their long years of experience working in their various regional/government positions. In doing so, the researcher does not only receive a direct answer to the question, rather, the whole story behind the answer.

It is important to clearly stress that: based on the primary findings of this research, aid is viewed to be “PARTLY EFFECTIVE” or “NOT EFFECTIVE” in fully addressing climate adaptation in the region.

The role of regional organisations explored in Chapter 4 contributes a lot to the effectiveness of aid. Issues such as project/programme ineffectiveness, failure and duplication arise when efforts are not coordinated. The work of these entities in the region is guided by their specific mandates. Funds are being disbursed to these organisations for the work they are mandated to do in the region. With climate change and its cross-cutting nature, specific roles and actions of the organisations can be overlapping; resulting in high probabilities of duplication. It is therefore timely that traditional mandates are updated to cater for the cross cutting nature of climate change.

Another issue contributing to the ineffectiveness of aid in the region is donor conditionality. Regional efforts are sometimes skewed towards areas where funding is available. As seen in Chapter 4, donors prefer specific sectors to work with, often decided by a top-down approach. Top-down approaches, while effective, can only be meaningful (particularly in the PICs) if local situations are taken into consideration. This is because at the grassroots level, the situation being

faced is very specific and applying an idea from outside will not have much positive impact on the livelihood of the people.

In relation to the above, national governments will need to realise that they play a leading role in mandating the work of their regional counter parts. Voicing the same issues during the different regional meetings should be done with specific directions on who should be doing what. Failure in doing so contributes to the overlapping roles and actions of regional organisations.

5.1.2: Challenges to Making Aid Effective in the Pacific Islands Region.

Respondents were asked to share their experiences when dealing with aid for climate change adaptation. Respondents answered this question in a very flexible way. All the stories surrounding this were recorded and later transcribed. The transcribed texts were then coded into broad themes. It is important to note here that while the major themes are given as a one word text or as phrases, some issues raised overlap each other. It was clear from the analysed scripts that the themes are factors that influence the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation in the region. Using the NVivo software for ease of coding, four major themes emerge. These themes are considered significant as they were mentioned by most of the respondents. These are:

1. Coordination and Harmonization 2. Accessibility to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Funds and Institutional Capacity 3. Donor Influence 4. Accountability and Transparency

Figure 5.2 shows the number of respondents against the four major themes. The next sections will further discuss the four themes listed above and supporting quotes from respondents.

Figure 5.2: Major issues raised and the number of respondents.

6 Number of respondents respondents Number of 4

0 Coordination & Accountability and Donor Influence Accessibility to CCA Harmonisation Transparency Funds and Institutional Capacity

It can be seen from the graph above that the theme with the highest number of respondents is “Coordination and Harmonisation”. During the interviews, all 4 regional organization officials and 11 government officials voiced concerns regarding coordination and harmonization in the region. The theme with the second highest number of respondents is “Accessibility to CCA Funds and Institutional Capacity” with a total of 14 respondents. “Donor Influence” and “Accountability and Transparency” emerged as the third and fourth themes each having a total of 12 and 10 respondents respectively.

Figure 5.3 below further shows the percentage coverage of the themes as they appear when all the scripts were combined and analysed. Since respondents were given the flexibility of sharing their perceptions, the percentages gives an indication of the coverage made on the respective themes. Figure 5.3 on the other hand covers the degree to which the participants talk on a

particular challenge. “Aid Effectiveness” is placed in the middle of the diagram as it was the main focus of this study.

Figure 5.3: Percentage (%) coverage of the themes in analysed script.

Researching the challenges encountered by officials dealing with aid for climate change adaptation in the region is very important as it provides “lessons learnt” in dealing with climate finance in the PICs.

The primary information compiled on ‘challenges’ encountered by the officials who took part in this study had enabled this study to answer its second objective - “What is/are the major challenges faced when dealing with the different development partners in the region?”

It is important to highlight here that the region is well aware of the challenges that comes with managing aid internationally, regionally and nationally. Climate change is considered a great hindrance to achieving economic and sustainable development in the region. There are initiatives undertaken by development partners in the region in trying to address the overall developmental challenges faced by the PICs. An important initiative is the formation of regional organizations whose roles in relation to climate change were presented in Chapter 4. These organisations were established to serve the development interests of the region. Climate change has emerged as the greatest threat to development in the region. Although climate adaptation finances are already flowing into the region, primary findings of this study show that these assistances are not effective in dealing with adaptation in the region. The challenges listed above can be used to explain why aid is not effective in the region.

Although the different issues were arranged in different sections, all the factors are related to each other. Issues such as coordination and harmonisation can be used as a measure of the region’s progress towards the principles of the Paris Declaration but more so the Cairns Compact. These also further supports the notion that the principles used to measure the effectiveness of aid can well be applied to climate finance and vice versa ( Bird & Glennie, 2011; Bird et al., 2013; Shalizi & Lacocq, 2009). There are, however, other issues that the region need to address separately when measuring aid effectiveness. A way forward will be setting principles that build from the Cairns Compact but are specific to climate finance. What the region needs is adaptation finance that increases resilience and adaptive capacities at all levels of society. As

voiced by a respondent, the region will need to come up with an agreed template that everyone can work on when addressing climate change adaptation but more so development in the region.

5.1.2.1: The Coordination and Harmonization Problem

Table 5.1 provides a summary of the number of participants who perceived harmonisation and coordination to be a problem based on their experiences working for regional organisations and national governments.

Table 5.1: Number of respondents on coordination and harmonization.

Number of Respondents (/15)

Regional Organisations 4

National Governments 11

Table 5.1 showed that all representatives from the selected regional organizations are experiencing harmonization/coordination problems.

All 15 participants have noted that although efforts have been made at the international, regional and national levels, the region is still faced with the coordination problem. All 11 officials interviewed from the national governments also perceived coordination and harmonisation to impact aid effectiveness for climate change adaptation in their respective countries.

All 15 respondents have expressed concerns that coordination is necessary at all levels (international, regional and local/national levels including the community level). Respondents have mentioned that although harmonization is to be dealt with locally, it is more of a donor obligation. It was interesting to note that all 11 national government officials think that regional

organizations should also harmonise their efforts in the region. The national government officials have the perception that regional organizations sometimes play a donor role in the region. The next paragraphs will provide some direct quotes from the interviews conducted with the officials from the regional organisations.

Participant A has discussed the challenges regional organizations face when dealing with the different development partners in the region. According to Participant A, CROP Organisations have put in a lot of effort to try and coordinate their work; however, more effort is needed.

Participant A explained this problem in the following lines:

“It gets difficult because organizations work according to their own strategic objectives and with the expertise that they have and I guess it doesn’t allow them to sort of reach out and work with other organizations, especially if you are going into a country for maybe a week or two and you have your own set of activities and tasks that you have to perform and trying to reach out to others is difficult.”

Participant B further emphasized the need for coordination in the region. According to Participant B, the lack of coordination is an operational issue that is not new to the region. Based on years of experience working in the region, the respondent pointed out how challenging it is to coordinate efforts amongst the regional organizations themselves and the national governments they represent. Participant B had further discussed that lack of coordination has been an issue for so many years. Although so may efforts have been taken, this issue remains a problem for the region:

“..it (referring to coordination) is a recurring problem and it did not go away”.

Speaking on the same line the following are direct quotes from Participant C:

“There are conflicting ideas between donors and implementing entities. For example, one project supports food security in a community by giving out planting materials and another donor comes in and focuses on the same community but on relocation. This is seen as a waste of already limited resources. This boils down to the coordination and harmonization problem that exists between the different development partners.”

Participant C goes on to further mention that because there is no proper coordination among the different development partners there is a lot of duplication of efforts in the region. The issue of duplication is further highlighted in the lines below:

“Duplication is also a major problem in the region. Governments should have a proper record of work already done by other development partners to avoid duplication. Most governments are in the process of drawing up Climate Change aid flows to their countries but they do not account for aid flows to NGOs and often their effort is not acknowledged.”

The issue of duplication was also raised by Participant E. The participant expressed the issue of duplication in the following lines:

“Duplication of activities already done by other donors is a major issue for the region. We have so many donors doing the same thing that previous partners had done.”

“Duplication is also major problem in the region. Governments should have a proper record of work already done by other development partners to avoid duplication. “

When representatives from the countries in the region were interviewed for their perspectives on aid effectiveness in general similar concerns were raised. These nationals also expressed great concerns regarding aid coordination and the need to harmonize efforts in-country. Participant F, for example, had discussed the great assistance his country is receiving in financial assistances.

According to this participant, these assistances are tremendous in the way they are set out. However, there are always conflicting interests on the part of donors. As participant F explains:

“There is always conflicting interests on the part of donors who come in to implement the same kind of project but named differently, they are very good in naming all of these projects under different acronyms. Our aim now in the office as part of the policy coordination is to harmonise all these together so that they come in line with our top priorities as well as they feed well into our national processes.”

In contrast to the above, Participant G has expressed that coordination has been a major problem for her country in the past, however, a lot has happened and now coordination in-country is improving but at a very slow pace. According to this participant, the only way to further improve coordination and harmonization of efforts is to have strong institutional arrangements. Countries must learn to say ‘NO’ to some initiatives that sound impressive, yet are not in line with national priorities. This way, donors can reconsider their approaches and work more towards country needs.

The need to have approaches that directly benefit countries was also publicly voiced by another national official during a speech presented in a high level regional forum held when this research was conducted. The participant when interviewed for this research reiterated the need to harmonize efforts in-country and the region. According to this participant, the lack of harmonization and coordination has caused a lot of problems for his country.

Lack of coordination and harmonization among development partners has been identified as an ongoing issue that has been in the region for a long time. Based on the interviews conducted, respondents tend to consider coordination as a problem that should be dealt with at the regional and national/government level. In contrast to this, harmonization is viewed as an issue that donors need to address when and while engaging in the region.

Regional organizations in the Pacific Islands Region were all set up to address developmental challenges facing the region. ‘Coordination’ is a word that is common in the region having been perceived by leaders as paramount to achieving development effectiveness in the region. Regionalism in the south Pacific was conceived to promote coordination and cooperation in the region. Exploring the various histories of the selected regional organisations, one thing that is certain is that, at every regional meeting held, the outcome document always iterate the need for ‘more’ coordination between the different development stakeholders that come into play. For climate change in particular, this is no exception. Monitoring and evaluation reports, reports of lessons learnt and progress achieved over the histories of the organisations, in most cases, tend to acknowledge the considerable progress made with regards to the issue of coordination and harmonization, however, the primary results of this research had shown otherwise. As seen in the previous chapter, ALL respondents have experienced issues and challenges relating to coordination in the region.

All of the selected organisations have mandates that seek to promote coordination among member countries and their development partners. This is clearly reflected in the agreements establishing these organisations. International, regional and national efforts are being clear on their agenda to promote coordination and harmonization. The Paris Declaration was aimed at addressing development effectiveness; coordination and harmonization were identified as principles of this declaration. PICs were keen on ensuring development effectiveness therefore developed the Cairns Compact, which sets out principles aligned to the Paris Declaration. Before the Cairns Compact was endorsed, the Pacific Plan and more specifically for climate change, the PIFACC, were already working instruments that contained elements proposed to promote coordination and harmonization in the region. The establishment of all the plans and frameworks and continuous call by leaders for ‘more’ coordination brings one to question the strength and respective capabilities of the region’s existing entities in addressing coordination in the region.

SPC’s role towards coordination is clearly stated in the Agreement Establishing SPC (Canberra Agreement). This agreement has outlined the coordination role of SPC as follows:

“to provide for and facilitate research in technical, scientific, economic and social fields in the territories within the scope of the Commission and to ensure the maximum cooperation and coordination of the activities of research bodies” (Secretariat of the South Pacific Community, 1947).

“ to make recommendations for the coordination of local projects in any of the fields mentioned in the previous subparagraphs which have regional significance and for the provision of technological assistance from a wider field not otherwise available to a territorial administration” (Secretariat of the South Pacific Community, 1947).

Similar to SPC, the Agreement Establishing SPREP clearly outlines the role the organization will play towards coordination in the region. The following is an extract from the agreement:

“Recognizing the need for co-operation within the region and with competent international, regional and sub-regional organizations in order to ensure coordination and co-operation in efforts to protect the environment and use the natural resources of the region on a sustainable basis” (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 1993).

SPREP has continuously updated the region on their role in coordinating regional environmental efforts. The importance of coordination is also continuously highlighted in their climate change action plans and their various programme/project documents. The objectives of the first action plan, for example, clearly stated the coordination role SPREP will play towards addressing climate change in the region.

PIFS has an even greater role to play in terms of coordination. First and foremost, under the organisations Strategic and Coordination Programme, PIFS’ main objective is “to ensure coordination among all the FICs and their development partners at all levels of the Forum processes to enhance cooperation” (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2014d). Chapter 4 of this thesis had outlined the history of this regional organization and explored the many “Plans, Strategies and Frameworks” that had been adopted throughout the history of the organization by the Forum leaders.

While all of these working instruments are designed to ensure development effectiveness, monitoring and evaluation and progress reports often indicated a short fall to achieving initially set targets and goals. As a result of this, old frameworks and plans are continuously renewed and updated, with different names and labels, however still containing the same elements (with a few additional ones). As noted by a respondent, coordination is an “age old” problem the region is struggling to deal with.

The role of PIFS towards coordination has been successful and unsuccessful over the history of the organization. In a recent blog posted on the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) (on the 16th April 2015), political analysts argued over the position of Fiji, Australia and New Zealand in the forum (Fiji was suspended from the Forum in 2009 due to a military coup). According to Fiji’s Prime Minister, Fiji will only re-join the Forum if Australia and New Zealand remove themselves from the Forum. In another blog, Fiji’s Prime Minister questions the relevance of having these two countries when their policies do not support climate change and the reduction of GHGs given the seriousness of climate change impacts in the region (Policy/PACNEWS, 2015). This goes on to further show the impact of regionalism in the region; regionalism can also impose a counter effect to coordination.

Exploring the roles mentioned above gives an indication that the PICs are fully aware of the challenges of lack of coordination and harmonization and the need to address it. These organisations were established in the late 20th century and based on the interviews conducted; lack of coordination is still the biggest issue to tackle in order to achieve effective climate finance. It is obvious in this sense that coordination is not a new issue here. Nakhooda and Jha (2014), also rightfully referred to the ongoing lack of coordination as an ‘age-old’ problem.

It will be misleading to conclude that there is no coordination at all in the region as there are very successful forms of coordination in the region. The successful existence of the various regional bodies, the sovereign nations and territories they represent and more so their convergence under the umbrella of “CROP” over many years is a good example of regionalism resulting from coordination. Successful funded projects/programmes that help build resilience and overall sustainable development in the region culminated from good forms of coordination. For the PICs, the best form of coordination is portrayed by the collective determination by countries to

be at the forefront of climate change leadership. The Majuro Declaration is a very good example of such leadership.

The issue of coordination is not only dealt with at the regional level but at the national level as well. Governments have also put in so much effort to address coordination at both the ministerial and community levels and with their external development partners. Most PICs are undergoing major restructuring of institutional structures to ensure that national efforts are more coordinated. Stories gathered from the interviews had indicated that coordination is an ongoing problem that requires action from all the development partners in the region. Efforts in country or at the regional level alone are not enough to solve the issue of coordination, rather the efforts should come from all those who are involved in the web of partnership. A report published by PIFs in 2011 has highlighted the need to coordinate efforts across all sectors of a society. According to this report, although the region fully supports the notion that climate finance should be distinguished from traditional ODA, the two should not be disbursed separately to support totally different policies and plans but both forms of financial assistances should support existing policies and plans in an integrated approach. This however can only be effective if efforts are coordinated (Maclellan, 2011; Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2011b).

The need to address coordination and harmonise efforts has been recognized internationally as essential to addressing aid effectiveness. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations strongly emphasizes on the need to coordinate efforts that address development and climate change, not separately but in an integrated manner (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2015).

5.1.2.2: Accessibility to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Funds and Institutional Capacity.

National governments in the PICs and the regional entities are eligible to apply for some of the available financial resources from multilateral, bilateral donors as well as other private sources. However, based on the interviews conducted, accessing these available resources poses great challenges to both the regional organizations and national governments. Accessibility of climate

adaptation resources is coded together with institutional capacity because all 14 respondents discussed these two issues alongside each other.

Table 5.2: Number of respondents to accessibility of CCA funds and institutional capacity.

Number of Respondents (/14)

Regional Organisations 3

National Governments 11

As per the semi-structured interviews conducted, 14 respondents raised concerns regarding the accessibility of funds (refer to Table 5.2 above). Out of the 14 officials, 3 from the regional organizations interviewed together with 11 in-country officials have agreed that although there are funds out there to address adaptation in the region, accessing them is not easy given the limited institutional capacities that exist in the region.

Regional organizations and national governments can act as both implementing and executing entities. Funds are usually channelled through entities like UNDP and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) who act as implementing agencies in the region. In some instances, regional organizations like PIFS, SPREP and SPC also have direct access to available climate financial resources. Despite this, the difficulty of accessing funds remains a major issue for the region. At the national level, the situation is much worse given the small administrations. All 14 officials mentioned that while accessing available financial resources is a challenge for them, they are fully aware that local institutions need to be strengthened in order for change to happen.

Al1 11 government officials expressed the administrative burden they experienced when dealing with climate financial resources and the many development partners that exists in the region.

Limited institutional capacity can mean that only a few officials are on the ground to do all that is required by the many development partners that come into play.

Participant E has clearly described himself as a person putting on five hats at once. The 5 hats represent the professional roles he is carrying out in his country. According to this participant, applying for funds is like pulling out a tooth. One has to go through so many processes that usually take up a lot of time.

The following is a direct quote from another respondent:

“The period really affects our activities because we plan our activities starting with the submission of proposals so when decisions are delayed, everything else is affected and we have a person on the ground doing nothing. So we end up paying somebody for doing nothing. We send him out in the islands with nothing to do and that is our biggest issue. So we end up with incomplete projects or not reaching the implementation stage at all.”

Participant D expressed the issue of administrative burden in the following lines:

“The processes that are associated with these funds are not at all easy. The logistics that is required takes too much time. For example, it takes over a year on average for projects to be approved and therein are other processes that takes up too much time before the implementation stage. This greatly affects the initial expenditure profile because the delay causes increases in the cost of implementation. If you delay, it’s going to cost more and the amount of money that is given will not change.”

When comparing the different donors (multilateral and bilateral), Participant C mentioned that funds available through bilateral donors are easier to access than those that are available multilaterally. Participant F also noted the same, further stating that bilateral processes are much simpler. Participant C, further discussed that because bilateral funds are easier to access, their influence in the region is more evident than the multilateral donors.

The region is facing a lot of challenges when it comes to climate financing. Current approaches have excluded some of the most vulnerable communities in the region and many countries have called for a mechanism that will allow more direct access to available resources. Development partners have already tried implementing direct budgetary support; however, there is difficulty in the demonstration of the distribution of financial resources, a key element towards transparency. While this type of mechanism works in favour of the countries that needed the financial assistances the most, the need to strengthen existing institutions and government structures in- country is a requirement that should be heavily considered (Carbon Market Solutions & Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2010; United Nations Development Programme, 2011).

The types of financial resources are classified under different categories under the convention. The Kyoto Protocol AF, SCCF and LDCF are examples of the available multilateral sources of funding. In addition to these, bilateral funding that are available includes: The Hatoyama Initiative from Japan, the Environmental Transformation Fund-International Window and The International Climate Change Initiative from Australia (Carbon Market Solutions & Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2010).

In terms of the PICs, the most important issue to consider is “Adaptation” rather than mitigation given they collectively contribute very little to the total amount of emissions as compared to the larger countries globally. However, most of the available financial resources are addressing ‘Mitigation’, leaving the region with the option of accessing the smaller resources such as the LDCF and the SCCF (Carbon Market Solutions & Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 2010). Figure 5.4 below shows the total flows of climate-related aid to the PICs in 2013 alone.

Figure 5.4: Integrated Bilateral and Multilateral climate-related flows in 2013.

120

Total Flows for Adaptation 100 Total Flows for Mitigation 80 Both Adaptation & Mitigation

Amount in USD Million 33.64

8.23 7.23 5.1 5.17 3.31 2.73 0.49 1.77 1.57 1.24 1.08 0.15 0.46 0

Source: This study, based on data available at climateupdate.org.

It can be seen from the graph that most of the climate-related aid flows (in 2013) supports mitigation in the PICs. Total figures for the various aid flows for adaptation alone are evident on the graph with countries like Tonga and the Cook Islands receiving the least climate adaptation

funds in the region. These countries are good examples of countries that are totally excluded from the funds made available under the convention. All three countries do not fall under the “LDC” status therefore do not qualify to apply for funds made available under the LDCF. This goes on to further show the impact of political requirement associated with the available sources of adaption funds on these vulnerable countries. Although mitigation activities are considered part of adaptation, efforts that support mitigation sometimes do not address the urgent need of vulnerable communities in the region.

Figure 5.5 below shows the architecture of climate financing. The different channels by which funds flow are shown on the diagram. For the PICs, the current modalities of financial resources pose some challenges that are slowing the progress of many adaptation initiatives in the region. For them the complexity of already existing financial mechanisms is increased by further regional organizations and administrative bodies, not to mention the weak government institutions that are in place.

It was evident from the interviews conducted that the mechanisms through which climate funds are channeled pose significant challenges to the region. The architecture shown above is obviously complex. Climate finance has to go through a lot of administrations before reaching the PICs. The already complex diagram shown in Figure 5.5 is further branched out in the PICs to include regional and local stakeholders. This makes processes more complex in the PICs. This means local communities are always at a disadvantage given the fact that the processes involved takes too long and by the time money reaches the most vulnerable people (in the PICs the most vulnerable are the communities), administrative fees had already used up a huge amount of funds. This issue was well reflected in the participant responses.

Figure 5.5: Climate finance architecture in the region.

Source: Climate Funds Update (2015); Feturi (2012).

96 5.1.2.3: Donor Influence

Donor Influence emerged as the third factor influencing the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation in the region. 12 respondents have shared their experiences surrounding donor influence. These respondents raised many concerns both at the regional and national levels. Table 5.3 shows the number of respondents who had experienced donor influence to be an issue that contributes negatively to aid effectiveness for climate change adaptation in the region.

Table 5.3: Number of respondents of donor influence.

Number of Respondents (/12)

Regional Organisation 2

National Governments 10

Table 5.3 above show that 90% of the participants from national governments think that donor influence is an issue for them. 2 respondents from the regional organizations also agree that donor influence is an issue at the regional level as well.

The following paragraphs provide detailed explanations of the issue of donor influence as per the interviews:

Participant A when interviewed, expressed concerns whereby some development partners impose rules that do not work well for the region. According to this respondent, addressing this region without the necessary background information and knowledge has been considered a hindrance to development effectiveness.

Participants E and G have also mentioned that donor influence had great impacts on development effectiveness at the national level. According to these respondents, development partners usually have stringent rules and requirements. While this has been seen as a good practice, national governments have come across situations whereby donor policies interfere with national policies. When such happens, it is very difficult for governments to get peoples support on the ground. In addition to this, Participant H discussed the importance of respecting national priorities, further saying that most government leaders in the region know what is best for their respective countries and it is very challenging for them to work together with donors who work more for their self-interest.

Respondents have raised concerns that when one considers how effective aid had been in the region, it is best to look at the outcome of the projects implemented by aid. Talking from their experience, all 12 respondents had come across situations where donors choose locations that are easy to work with rather than addressing the real need. A respondent clearly states his concern in the following lines:

“Why should we shy away from long distances when there are people there that we have to deal with, that are vulnerable or the most vulnerable of the people?”

In line with the above Participant E in particular had discussed that the regional organizations are working to a “one size fits all’ approach. While this has been seen as an excellent approach, what makes sense in the larger volcanic islands does not necessarily make sense for an atoll island. According to this respondent, there are some cases whereby regional organizations also interfere with government plans.

Respondents have noted that very little has been done on the ground because donor conditionality is demanding and overwhelming. Officials feel that they are over-burdened by all the bureaucracies. The reporting requirements take up so much of the officials’ time. These arguments support the findings of two similar studies carried out in the region (Hemstock & Smith, 2012; Wrighton, 2010). Although both of these studies were conducted on a national level

basis (within Tuvalu), the present study goes on to show that donor influence is also experienced in other countries in the region.

Based on the interviews conducted, it is certain that while administrative burden remains a problem for the region, officials interviewed are well aware of the flip side to the problem; that financial external assistances is not free money, rather, are tax payers money that needs to be handled well and reported for transparency and accountability purposes.

5.1.2.4: Accountability and Transparency to Climate Funds in the Region

Accountability surfaced as the fourth theme. A total of 10 respondents expressed concerns surrounding lack of accountability and transparency with most projects that exists in the region.

Table 5.4 below gives a summary of the number of respondents who perceived accountability and transparency to impact aid effectiveness in the region.

Table 5.4: Number of respondents of accountability and transparency.

Number of Respondents (/10)

Regional Organisations 2

National Governments 8

It can be seen from table 5.4 above that alongside 2 officials from the regional organizations interviewed, more than 50% of government officials interviewed think lack of transparency and accountability hinders aid effectiveness in their respective countries.

It was observed that as Pacific Islanders, respondents know very well when projects are successful in meeting their initial objectives and when projects fail. Based on the interviews conducted, respondents expressed that most projects usually do not reach their implementation stages. There are some projects that reach their implementation and monitoring and evaluation stages, however, fail to further address issues identified during the monitoring and evaluation stages and when this happens, no one is held accountable. Two participants expressed the issue of accountability in the following lines:

“Most Donors which do projects leave projects as soon as they are complete and if it fails, no one bothers.”

“Most bilateral donors only have programmes that run up until the implementation stage but fail to further implement recommendations that are identified in their evaluation process.”

All of the 8 respondents from the national governments have raised concerns that a lot of the financial resources coming into the region do not reach their intended beneficiaries. According to these government officials, most of the money that has been coming into the region is mostly spent on meetings and conferences, overseas travels and projects that end with reports and no tangible “on-the-ground” or practical outcomes. In line with these arguments, all the officials have noted that a large sum of aid is used on technical assistances.

Participant H discussed two types of development partners that serve the region. The first groups are the implementing entities like UNDP and the regional organizations. According to this respondent, when these entities get funding, they get their share of the money first and divide the rest between different countries, which is not enough to run any project on the ground. According to Participant H, this is why most programmes/projects end with reports and no tangible outcomes on the ground. The second group of partners is those that engage in projects that reach completion. However leave the project site without fully implementing the issues identified in the monitoring and evaluation stages of the project cycles.

100

In addition to the above, Participant I acknowledged the vast number of projects that are being implemented in-country. According to this respondent, most projects work towards their project objective, however, what really needs to happen is for countries to see how one project impacts on other projects in the long term. Speaking from experience, the respondent noted that during their evaluation stages, achievements are ticked off using a set of pre-determined criteria without really considering the impacts these projects have on the livelihood of the intended beneficiaries. Participant I further noted that while her country is slowly improving in terms of the principles of the Paris Declaration, “Managing for Results” is one where the country needs to work on.

Participant H recommended that most countries need to have trust funds to ensure projects and programmes are sustainable. According to this respondent, implementing a “Self Reliant Financing Mechanism” is necessary for the region. The following is a direct quote from this respondent:

“We want projects to be sustainable and by putting money into a trust fund, a project can be sustainable even after the project life ends.”

Lack of accountability and transparency is also a problem for the region. A respondent has mentioned that most financial assistances failed to reach the intended beneficiaries. Another respondent has concerns over the failure to fully complete project implementation. These issues arise despite the growing realization that action needs to be taken in order to improve results. The concerns raised by respondents on the lack of accountability and transparency in the PICs goes on to support Easterly (2006), who had noted that projects fail to impact the most vulnerable because there is lack of transparency and accountability, between donors and recipients, in the way foreign assistances are utilized.

This chapter provided direct quotes from respondents commenting on unsustainable and failed projects supported by aid. Numerous projects have failed to improve the lives of the most vulnerable, especially those at the rural communities who have always tried to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change.

101

The need to properly account for climate finances in the region is also hampered by the global climate architecture itself and the different modalities through which financial resources are channeled (Fransen et al., 2012).

A good case study to consider when exploring “lessons learnt” in the effectiveness of climate finance would be the Fast-Start Finance (FSF) which was operational from 2010 to 2012. Reports available on the FSF have contrasting details on the accountability of total funds disbursed to assist developing countries address climate change. The FSF was perceived to be the first “new and additional” climate fund disbursements under the convention (UNFCCC). Previous studies conducted around this money found that while developed countries claim that they had disbursed amounts exceeding the 30 billion pledged for during the FSF period; developing countries reported that they had received amounts below the 30 billion. Fransen and others (2012) argued that developing countries were not so transparent in accounting for the total climate finance they received. This problem is due to the different financial disbursement modalities and weak institutional arrangements. While some donors disburse funds bilaterally through the national governments; others channel funds regionally through the regional organisations (Fransen et al., 2012; Nakhooda et al., 2013).

5.1.2.5: Other Issues Raised

There are other specific issues raised that did not emerge as themes when the recordings were coded however are considered relevant to the topic.

The first important issue is on “Mainstreaming Climate Change”. Only 1 respondent shared his perspective on this issue. The following paragraph is a direct quote from this respondent:

“Climate change is a cross-cutting issue, it’s going to be mainstreamed into all the different sectors and at the national level that’s very very difficult to do because many countries address climate change through their environment ministries so basically this is where the knowledge sits, these are the people that go to the COPs, these are the people that go to workshops. Meanwhile the person in the health ministry doesn’t know what’s going on and how climate

102

change affects health, so you see I think we got to reach a stage where you enroll the ministry whose area you are discussing and you got to build the capacity at the national level, including government officials in different sectors and I think in order to do that you need to share the knowledge around, involve the different sectors and you need to have a mechanism that allows the different sectors to talk to each other and you got to factor climate change into national budgets and program it. For example: the health sector might have millions of dollars and if you ask if they have factored in climate change, they will say ‘NO’ because it’s a low priority because for them, the priority is what is happening here and now. But they are going to have to factor in climate change and malaria related to climate change but to do that you need good base-line data and that’s missing for many countries so that’s a real challenge.”

Although mentioned by only 1 respondent, mainstreaming climate change adaptation is an important issue worth undertaking practically. Coordination can be well addressed if important climate change stakeholders are aware of how climate change impacts specific sectors. Mainstreaming will further ensure that all development policies and plans factor in climate change considerations. Mainstreaming climate change really captures the need to not only coordinate between relevant stakeholders but the need to recognise the connections between issues such as climate change and health.

Another issue that was identified by participants alongside project/programme implementation was the “Sustainability” of the projects that are being implemented in the region. 4 respondents perceived this as a negative impact on aid effectiveness in the region. In terms of project sustainability, the respondents have discussed that most projects that were implemented are not sustainable. According to Participant C, most projects that have been implemented in the region are pilot projects and although they are successful, most of them are not sustainable. The following is a direct quote from Participant C:

“Project sustainability is very important. If projects are successful but not sustainable, they are failed projects.”

103

Participant E gave a recommendation to all stakeholders that are helping the region in terms of financial assistances to invest in things that can have lasting impacts. The respondent further added that the region needs to consider investments that will take the region out of its ‘aid dependent trap’.

5.2: Linking the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles to Interview Statements

The previous sections had provided the major challenges encountered in the PICs when dealing with climate finance. According to (Pearl-Martinez, 2011), “climate change adaptation finance should not be considered aid in the traditional sense. However, many lessons learned regarding development and aid effectiveness are relevant”. According to the political grouping PIFS, all activities supported by development aid and climate finance (new and additional) should be guided by the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles. Similarly, other frameworks and plans such as the PIFACC and the Pacific Plan (now upgraded to the Framework for Pacific Regionalism) all guide climate change and development actions in the region. In this sense, it will be important to explore the applicability of the various statements raised by respondents to the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles. Table 5.5 seeks to address this.

104

Table 5.5: Interview statements and Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles.

Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles Paris Declaration Interview Scripts

1. Country leadership and ownership Ownership “To improve aid national governments have a very important role to play. They have to set conditions donors can stick to when they come into a country. This will ensure that national priorities identified by national governments are met with any development.”

2. Multiyear commitments by Alignment “It gets difficult because organizations work according to their own strategic objectives and development partners and countries with the expertise that they have and I guess it doesn’t allow them to sort of reach out and work

aligned nationally identified with other organizations especially if you are going into a country for maybe a week or two and priorities you have your own set of activities and tasks that you have to perform and trying to reach out to others is difficult.”

3. Greater Pacific ownership of regional development Ownership

4. Development partners and Harmonization “The challenge is you need to have everybody thinking alike because some donors who aren’t countries pursue a coordinated familiar with the region, aren’t familiar with the work that’s been done just want to do their approach encouraging harmonization own thing because that’s all they know and they don’t know the people, they don’t know the networks and so they think they are doing everything and nobody else is doing anything and everything everyone else is doing is irrelevant, so that’s one of the challenges.”

105

5. Strengthened institutional Alignment “Most of the time workers are on work travel, they attend to so many meetings and conferences. mechanisms and capacity in This travels does not build their capacity. Most money that donors give is spent on too much countries in enable increased use of travelling and conferences, no wonder we end up with so many reports and not much tangible local systems. outcomes on the ground.”

6 (i) Provision of technical assistance Ownership “Best practices are actually not best practices but good practices because the Pacific does not that ensures capacity is built and have the capacity to have everything applicable to them.” benefits are tangible to support national ownership

6 (ii) Short term Technical assistance Alignment “TA’s usually consume the bulk of aid” addresses local skills gaps and are culturally sensitive

7. Use of agreed monitoring and Mutual “There are a lot of projects. A lot of these projects work towards the project objectives, so you evaluation framework that will Accountability work to your project objectives but you also need to see how your project impacts on other ensure joint assessments projects in the long term, not just what you did like you consulted this communities, you implemented, how much you build something but what’s the impacts in the livelihoods of the people.”

“Donors like UNDP and other regional organizations, when they get funds; they get their slice first and then share the rest between different countries which is just not enough to run a project. This is also why we end up with so many reports and less on the ground projects. Others which do projects leave projects as soon as they are complete and if it fails, no one bothers.”

106

It can be seen from the table above that the issues faced by the PICs are either overlapping to be addressed by a particular principle and at the same time very specific to be broadly defined by the sets of principles currently labelled as the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles. In addition to this, some of the specific issues raised fall well outside of the set of principles. For those that fall well under the principles, more effort is needed to achieve development effectiveness. These issues are very important to address as they further demonstrate that the approach taken by the regional leaders is in fact a “one-size-fits-all” kind of approach that may not be efficient to address the specific circumstances facing the PICs. If the sets of principles are futile at the regional and national levels, they will have no impact at all at the grassroots level, where issues are often too specific to apply the “one- size-fits-all” kind of approach (refer to chapter 6 for more details on specific community needs).

5.3: Chapter Conclusion

This chapter has provided the primary findings of this research. Raw data from the semi- structured interviews conducted were coded into themes using the NVivo Software. After the coding was completed, four major themes emerged. These themes are considered as factors that negatively impact aid effectiveness for climate change adaptation in the PICs.

Since the themes do not speak well of the information provided by respondents, direct quotes were given. These quotes further detail the challenges experienced by officials who are at the receiving end of aid for climate change adaptation in the region. Other comments raised by participants will be provided in other chapters of this thesis.

It is important to note that the themes are broad and at some instances respondents talk about two issues as one issue. This had resulted in the combining of two issues as one theme. It is evident from the interviews that all the issues raised here are interdependent in some ways and the occurrence of one problem can lead to another issue. An example that could be given is on the issue of coordination and harmonization of climate adaptation efforts; when efforts are not coordinated, duplication can arise as experienced by some participants of this research.

109

An important section in this chapter ties direct quotes from respondents to the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles, based on this, it was concluded that the various issues faced by the PICs were too specific to be broadly categorized under each of the principles, either because they are overlapping or due to the fact that they fall outside of the set of principles.

110

CHAPTER 6 – AID EFFECTIVENESS: COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE BASED ON THE USP-EUGCCA PROJECT

6.0: Chapter Introduction

Chapter 5 provided the primary findings of this research and the secondary information that seeks to explain why the PICs are struggling for development effectiveness and more specifically ensuring climate financial resources are being utilized to help the most vulnerable.

Although the PICs are all affected by the negative impacts of climate change, rural communities are particularly vulnerable given their direct contact with the environment on which their everyday livelihood depends (IPCC, 2015; McNamara & Limalevu, 2001; Preston et al., 2006). This chapter will explore the effectiveness of aid in the communities drawing on both primary and secondary information obtained from a project funded under the EUGCCA Project.

In order to develop a comprehensive view of aid effectiveness, it is important to consider effectiveness at community level. In trying to address this aspect, the researcher interviewed the USP-EUGCCA Project’s Fiji Country Coordinator and the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation officer whose work is community-based. Further evaluation was conducted going through the audio recordings and evaluation reports from the communities involved. Fiji was chosen for the community engagement component of this study because activities in Fiji were the most advanced, in terms of completion, of all the 15 countries covered by the project.

The next section will briefly explore the EUGCCA and its support in the Pacific Islands Region. Sections after this will explore in detail EUGCCA and its engagement with USP (this chapter uses “USP-EUGCCA” to refer to the project administered by the USP and “EUGCCA” referring to overall programme). Since the study is Fiji based, a section will briefly give the background of Fiji and the impacts of climate change in the country.

111

The USP-EUGCCA Project (community component) and its effectiveness will form the major discussions in the later sections of this chapter.

6.1: The European Union Global Climate Change Alliance (EUGCCA).

The Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) is an initiative by the European Union launched in 2007 by the European Commission. Having realized the vulnerability of SIDS and LDCs, the GCCA was established to strengthen dialogue and cooperation on climate change between the European Union (EU) and developing countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, in particular the SIDS and LDCs. The GCCA serves as a “platform for dialogue and exchange of experience between the EU and vulnerable countries on areas of climate policy and the integration of climate change into policies and budgets” (Global Climate Change Alliance, 2012a).

The GCCA provides technical and financial support to five priority areas. These areas include:

- Mainstreaming climate change into poverty reduction and development efforts. - Adaptation. - Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). - Enhancing participation in the global carbon market. - Disaster risk reduction (DRR).

Financial support from the EUGCCA is in the form of grants, disbursed through various modalities (Project, Sector Budget Support, General Budget Support, and Sector Policy Support Programme).

In the PICs, GCCA operates directly with the national governments and through the regional organizations. At the national level the GCCA project operates in the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Vanuatu. Other countries are covered through the work of the regional organizations. Regionally, assistance is given to SPREP, SPC, and USP. Table 6.1 below gives a summary of the EUGCCA Regional support activities. Table 6.2 further outlines the work of the GCCA at the national levels.

112

Table 6.1: EUGCCA regional support in the PICs.

Regional Project/Programme Support Activities Total Fund Organisation Allocation (Euros)

USP GCCA Pacific Capacity 8 million Islands Forum building support programme Community engagement in adaptive action (Intra-ACP GCCA programme) Applied research

SPREP GCCA Pacific Supports the n/a Islands Forum implementation of support programme PIFACC

SPC Global Climate Support the 11.4 million Change Alliance: governments of nine Pacific Small Island smaller Pacific Island States (GCCA: states, namely Cook PSIS) project Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Tonga and Tuvalu, in their efforts to tackle the adverse effects of climate change.

Source: Adapted from GCCA (2012a).

113

Table 6.2: GCCA Pacific Islands’ country support.

Country Programme GCCA Priority Sector(s) Implementing Total Area(s) Modality Funding (Euros)

Papua Technical support to REDD Forests Project 5.8milli

New the Papua New on Guinea Guinea Forest Authority to implement a continuous and multi- purpose national forest inventory

Solomon The Solomon Islands Adaptation, Overall General budget 2.8milli Islands Climate Assistance DRR, development & support on Programme Mainstreaming poverty reduction

Samoa Supporting climate Adaptation, Water & sanitation Sector budget 3 DRR, support change adaptation million for the Samoan Mainstreaming

water sector

Vanuatu GCCA thematic Adaptation, Agriculture, Project 5.7 DRR, Natural resources support programme million for Vanuatu. Mainstreaming management, Overall

development & poverty reduction, Water

Source: Adapted from GCCA (2012a)

114

The previous tables provide information on the EUGCCA Pacific component and the types of activities supported. The programme works directly with governments and regionally through the regional organisations. According to information available on the EUGCCA website (2012), “building partnerships and ensuring complementarity underpins the work of the GCCA”.

6.2: USP- EUGCCA Project.

USP is the implementing agency for the GCCA Pacific component of the Intra-ACP GCCA program. This project is known as the USP-EUGCCA Project and involves a total of 8 million Euros directed towards Capacity Building, Community Engagement in Adapting to Climate Change, and Applied Research. Figure 6.1 shows the budget allocation for various components of the project. The project operates in fifteen Pacific countries in the region (Global Climate Change Alliance, 2012a; University of the South Pacific, 2013).

Based on Figure 6.1, the community engagement component has the largest percentage of budget allocation. This however has been equally distributed to the 15 selected countries in the region. In this case, a total amount of FJD 350,000 had been allocated for each of the 15 countries covered by the project. This accounted for human resource costs, overhead costs and the actual project implementation costs (Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development, 2012).

115

Figure 6.1: Percentage budget allocation for the USP-EUGCCA project.

Global Project Management 42 Capacity Building Community Engagement Applied Research

The progress of the USP-EUGCCA Project is monitored on a six-monthly and yearly basis and made available through the centre’s website. The community engagement component of the project in the selected countries provides a good case study on how effective aid is in meeting the adaptation needs of those most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. These are the people at the grassroots level. Measuring the effectiveness of such regional projects does not only inform development partners of the effectiveness of aid at the community level, however, will also inform them of the efficiency and performance of regional entities as recipients of substantial amounts of aid in the region (University of the South Pacific, 2004).

116

In the PICs, grassroots communities and settlements are at the forefront of all impacts. Communities face similar and differential impacts depending on their respective levels of exposure and sensitivity (Global Climate Change Alliance, 2012b). The USP-EUGCCA Project has projects running in 43 communities identified as most vulnerable in the 15 different countries it engages with. The USP-EUGCCA Project identifies vulnerable communities using an assessment methodology developed by the project team (developed as part of the project). This methodology enables vulnerability to be measured and comparisons made between communities/settlements (McNamara et al., 2012).

The USP-EUGCCA Project gives communities the opportunity to identify for themselves priority adaptation areas. Priority areas were identified during the project’s Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment involving comprehensive participatory community consultations. Based on the surveys conducted by the USP-EUGCCA team, the major challenge for most of the communities was lack of fresh water for daily household use. Communities living along coastal areas often face shortages of water due to naturally occurring storm surges and salt-water intrusion caused by sea level rise. This problem is very severe for communities in the low lying atolls. Solution to this problem has been rainwater harvesting. However, given the fact that rainfall patterns are changing more adaptation efforts are needed (Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development, 2012).

6.3: Background of Fiji

Fiji is a country located in the Oceania Region. Fiji lies approximately 4,450 kilometres southwest of Honolulu and 1,770 kilometres north of New Zealand. The country has a total land area of 18,270 square kilometres distributed over 332 islands (Fiji Guide, 2015).

Fiji enjoys a tropical maritime climate all year round. The weather is influenced by the trade winds which blow from the east-southeast direction. The average temperature of Fiji falls between the ranges of 26 to 31 degree Celsius. There is a wet season which is normally experienced from November to April and a dry cool season which occurs from May to October. The islands have distinct wet and dry zones in the southeast and north and west zones

117

respectively. Figure 6.2 shows the islands of Fiji. Two main islands are Viti Levu and Vanua Levu with many smaller islands scattered over the Pacific Ocean (the map does not show the island of Rotuma) (Fiji Guide, 2015).

Figure 6.2: Map of Fiji.

Source:(Museum Victoria, 2014).

6.3.1: Population and Economy

The total population of Fiji as of 2007 was 837,273. It was estimated that in 2009, the population could have been around 849,000 and assuming that the rate of growth remains at approximately 1.4%; by 2014 the population is assumed to be around 887,000. The total population of people living in urban centres as of 2007 was 424,846 while a total of 412,425 people lived in rural areas (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2006; World Population Review, 2014).

118

Fiji is economically more developed compared to the other PICs. The total GDP of Fiji as of 2012 was estimated at approximately 6604.3 million in Fijian Dollars. ODA had contributed significantly to the country’s economy. Figure 6.3 shows the total ODA (from all donors) disbursed to Fiji over the past 20 years (1995-2013). Apart from these foreign financial assistances, the country relies heavily on its agriculture sector for its export. Tourism is also by far the greatest contributor to the national economy (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2006).

Figure 6.3: Total ODA disbursed to Fiji over the period 1995-2013.

Source: This study, based on data from OECD.org

119

6.4: Impacts of Climate Change in Fiji.

Like the rest of the PICs, Fiji is highly vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change and climate variability. Factors such as sea level rise, salt water intrusion into fresh water lenses, ocean acidification and changing precipitation patterns have all affected people’s livelihood (Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistant Programme & Fiji Country Team, 2005). Heavy rainfall, flooding and high storm surges are becoming more evident in some parts of the country. Sea level rise over the past 200 years had already caused local migrations of coastal communities further inland (Nunn, 2013).

Climate change is projected to further affect agriculture and fisheries and overall food security. Human health and wellbeing is also threatened by high incidences of vector borne diseases and diarrhea due to sanitation problems. Impacts such as flooding, high storm surges and cyclones had already claimed some lives and caused a lot of physical injuries. Infrastructure is also under threat. Coastal infrastructures are particularly highly susceptible to sea level rise and high storm surges. These impacts, coupled with a small economy base, further affect the country’s economy. Fiji’s tourism industry has contributed a lot to the country’s economy. A great attraction for tourism in the country is the existence of coral reef ecosystems. However, increasing temperatures and ocean acidification coupled by human activities have already caused a lot of stress to this ecosystem (Pacific Center for Environment and Sustainable Development, 2015).

6.5: USP-EUGCCA Project: Case Study of Three Communities in Fiji.

The USP-GCCA Project was involved in direct community engagement and assisting in building community resilience to the negative impacts of climate change.

In 2013, a rapid vulnerability and adaptation assessment was carried out by the USP-EUGCCA project team to map out the respective levels of vulnerability of 17 communities in Fiji. The assessments had been carried out with four objectives as listed below:

1. Assess the level of vulnerability of the sites.

120

2. Assess the level of community perception on climate change. 3. Assess water supplies, health and sanitation in the communities. 4. Gain traditional knowledge for food preservation and security.

Based on the results of the assessments, three priority sectors were identified as needing urgent action. These three sectors include: water, health and sanitation. While all 17 communities were already experiencing the adverse effects of climate change, three sites were chosen (by a National Project Advisory Committee) based on the results of the vulnerability assessments. These communities included: Navai and Korolevu Villages in Viti Levu, Seaqaqa District in Vanua Levu (involving three communities: Navai, Navudi and Rokosalase) and Yanuca in Yanuca Island (Yakub, 2013).

The project also offered villagers two forms of trainings. The first training was a “water management training” whereby villagers were trained on simple and feasible water management techniques (for example, turning off taps properly when not in use and minimizing water usage during times of low rainfall). The second training was on “plumbing” whereby villagers were trained on simple plumbing techniques that can help in maintaining the water systems installed in the communities. Both of the trainings were carried out as part of the “Capacity Building, and Community Engagement in Adaptation Action” component of the project (Samani, 2015). This aspect of the project was reasonable for USP to conduct as the entity mandated for capacity building in the region.

6.5.1: Navai, Navudi and Rokosalase Villages

Navai, Navudi and Rokosalase Villages are all located on the island of Vanua Levu in the Seaqaqa District (Refer to Figure 6.4 for site location). The nearest business centre is the Labasa town which is located 35 kilometres from the district of Seaqaqa.

The sources of income for these villages are generated through sugarcane farming and other small subsistence farming. There is a combined total of 63 houses in the three villages, accommodating a total of 255 people (based on 2013 survey) (Yakub, 2013).

121

In the Seaqaqa District, all three communities rely on the same water source for their everyday use. The communities had experienced water shortages for a quite a while. This had further led to health and sanitation problems (Yakub, 2013).

Figure 6.4: Map of Seaqaqa District, Northern Fiji.

Source: Google Earth, 2015.

Although not enough, the fresh water sources available for these communities are from streams, wells, boreholes and through rain water harvesting. While all sources depend heavily on rainfall for their replenishment, rainfall events are becoming increasingly replaced by long periods of drought (Yakub, 2013). There were no proper water systems in these villages. The existing waste water disposal systems were in the form of septic tanks and soak pits.

122

While the elderly people are trying to cope with the issues that arise from water shortages, for most of the youths the solution to this problem was to migrate to urban centres. There have been a number of “abandoned” small holdings on the settlements over recent years due to migration (Yakub, 2013).

The site was visited by the USP-EUGCCA Project team in 2013 following the rapid and vulnerability and adaptation assessment that had ranked these villages as highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change particularly in the water, health and sanitation sectors (Yakub, 2013).

According to the project country coordinator Mr Yakub (2013), villagers had identified a water catchment to be the best option to address the villages’ water shortage problem. Since the main water source is located at Rokosalase village, the water catchment system was therefore constructed there and piped to other villages. To promote local ownership, the USP-EUGCCA Project gave villagers the opportunity to identify the best water catchment to use. The notion of “community ownership” has gained importance in almost all aid/projects in the region. This is also well reflected in the Paris Principles and Cairns Compact. Community ownership is seen as essential to achieving development effective. This principle is actually one that really trickles down to the grassroots level, although ambivalent at times.

A total of FJD$59,069.70 had been allocated under the project budget for this project. This budget is inclusive of all the necessary equipment that was needed to build a proper water supply system for the three villages. A further sum of FJD$25,000 was provided by the Labasa Cane Producers Association (LCP). Labour support had been provided by the Rotary Pacific Water Foundation (RPW) with further assistances from the villagers. Table 6.3 outlines the action plan for the village project.

123

Table 6.3: Sanitation and water resource management and conservation Action Plan.

Sector Issue Strategic Goal Objective Activity Indicator The sugarcane Water Authority of To provide Navai, Navudi and Construction of a A sustainable water farming communities Fiji (WAF) and Rokosalase Communities with catchment at Navai, system of Navai, Navudi & RPW were consulted and a project a simple sustainable water Navudi and Rokosalase installed with Rokosalase do not implementation budget has been supply system to improve their equipped with appropriate have sufficient water completed in the future, it is livelihoods and health and appropriate structure including Water for daily use. As a intended that WSD would install sanitation. Train the infrastructure for supply storage result these farmers metered scheme to assist in communities on biosand filter of water to 86 houses. Communities of are leaving their maintenance of the water system technique in collaboration Training of the water Navai, Navudi and (Jun-Aug, farms to reside in through billing systems. with RPW committee and Rokosalase and 2013) urban centres which members of the Navai trained will cause more settlement on simple appropriately in social problems. plumbing techniques to simple plumbing fix leakages and replace and bio-sand filter worn out materials techniques Increase in discharge Based on Rural To provide Navai, Navudi and To survey and inform Communities of Waste of wastewater Water Supply Rokosalase communities with communities on Navai, Navudi & including grey and Management Plan (WSMP) appropriate information on appropriate discharge of Rokosalase Water & black water. This Wastewater will be discharged in wastewater discharge using wastewater to prevent Trained Sanitation would be a result of soak pits and septic tanks. simple technique of discharge. health implications in appropriately in an increase in water Currently sanitation facilities are Human waste will be collaboration with construction of supply flush and water seal systems discharged in septic tanks with Ministry of Health, simple soak pits and discharged in septic tanks and upgrading of sanitation Public Health Division, septic tanks (Ongoing) wastewater in soak pits. facilities from pit, if any, to Labasa. Information on benefits and either water seal or flush construction of compost facilities systems. Grey water will be will be shared with communities of discharged in soak pits Navai, Navudi & Rokosalase. overgrown with relevant plants.

Total Budget for Water Sector: FJD $ 59,069.70 Total Budget for Waster water & Sanitation: (n/a).

Source: (Yakub, 2013).

124

6.5.2: Korolevu Village

Korolevu Village is also located on Vanua Levu in the northern division of Fiji in the Seaqaqa District (Refer to Figure 6.4 above). The Village is also part of the Seaqaqa District. Similar to the three villages discussed in the previous section, Korolevu village also suffers from shortages of fresh water. The village does not have any water system. Fresh water for daily household consumption was normally fetched from a stream or from wells which are often dry during long periods of drought. Rain water that was normally stored in metal tanks that are very old and rusty and catered for the village water needs. In terms of sanitation, waste water were being disposed using septic tanks and soak pits (Yakub, 2013).

The village has a total of 23 houses supporting a total population of 108 people. The major source of income for villagers is sugarcane farming. The village was identified as highly vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change particularly in the water and sanitation sectors. Since the village has access to a stream that originated from a spring further inland (Naururu Spring), the project team decided to install a water catchment which will be used to transfer water into a 15, 000 litre water tank for storage and treatment purposes. A total budget of FJD $37,423.70 had been allocated for this project (Yakub, 2013).

6.5.3: Yanuca Island

Yanuca Village is the only village located in the Yanuca Island in the Ringgold Isles (Refer to Figure 6.5).

There were a total of 25 houses with a total population of 100 people. Due to its geographical location, income is generated from the marine environment mainly through fishing and harvesting of sea cucumbers (Yakub, 2013).

125

Figure 6.5: Map of Yanuca Island in the Ringold Isles.

Source: (Google Earth, 2015).

Based on the rapid assessment study, the island’s water sector is ranked highly vulnerable to climate change. The village has three sources of water. Drinking and cooking water is sourced from rainwater while that for washing and bathing is sourced from ground water and shallow springs. All sources of water depend heavily on rain for their replenishment. The village used to have a borehole supplying water to the village, however, this had been damaged by cyclone Tomas in 2010 (Yakub, 2013).

Table 6.4 provides the assessment of the water sources as identified by the project team.

126

Table 6.4: Assessment of water sources.

Existing Source of Quantity Quality Remarks Water

Surface Water Below Average Poor Source originates after heavy rainfall.

Ground Water 0.5L/s Poor Source originates after heavy rainfall.

Rain Water Sufficient Poor Water tanks are available however reserved for drinking and cooking only.

Source: (Yakub, 2013).

After a consultation meeting with the community, the project team and community members decided to fix the old borehole to supply the village with the much needed water. The agreement was to install a water tank big enough to store water during times of low rainfall. The project successfully installed this and water was then piped to the village for ease of accessibility. Figure 6.6 below is a schematic diagram of the system as of completion.

127

Figure 6.6: Schematic diagram of Yanuca water supply system.

Source: (Yakub, 2013).

6.5.4: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Projects in the Communities in Fiji.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) is an important phase in any project cycle. M & E checks the effectiveness of implemented projects against a set of indicators. As previously mentioned, the researcher conducted a series of interviews with the Fiji country coordinator and the project’s M & E officer on how the project impacted the grassroots people in the three selected sites. Local community perceptions were also obtained from evaluation reports and audio recordings from the communities involved.

128

According to the coordinator, straight after the water systems were successfully installed, all the three project sites benefited. The Navai, Navudi and Rokosalase water catchment project managed to supply piped water to 86 households. The installation of water tanks had allowed villagers to have access to safe water for household use. In Korolevu Village, the project had managed to supply water throughout the village. As part of the project’s capacity building, community members comprising of both men and women were also trained on how to carry out simple plumbing, water sampling and testing techniques. This would ensure the village enjoys clean and safe water and because the villagers are trained on how to manage the project on their own, community ownership was established. Proper care of the facilities will also ensure project sustainability. Yanuca Village had benefited a lot from the water project. The project had managed to supply water to a total of 24 houses. A committee was also created to oversee any issues affecting the project. Capacity building was attained through the training of committee members on how to carry out simple plumbing techniques as well as conduct water sampling and testing.

According to the project staff interviewed, due to limited funds, the project was not able to further implement activities for the waste water and sanitation sectors. While this can be seen as a limitation to project implementation, notable achievements have been made. Firstly, the installation of water catchment for these villages has improved their access to fresh and healthy water. Some families were able to install flush toilets and sinks in their houses which solved much of the sanitation problems experienced before the project was implemented. Secondly, capacity building had been achieved through the training of village elders on how to care for and maintain their improved water systems. A committee comprising of both males and females were created to oversee issues pertaining to all projects in the respective project sites.

Further questions were asked surrounding the selection of the three final project sites. It had been clearly emphasised project sites were selected based on the assessments previously discussed. However, the researcher wanted to know if other factors influenced the decision on project sites. This was intentionally done to prove previous responses from respondents from some of the selected regional organisations and national governments who noted that some development partners choose the most accessible sites/communities to work with regardless of their levels of

129

vulnerability (refer to direct quotes in Chapter 5). Also that funding disbursed usually does not cover important expenses such as transportation costs. According to one of the project staff, the greatest factor that determined the final three sites had been the budget allocation for this component of the project. Based on the perception of the country coordinator, there are other remote communities who are also adversely affected by climate change; however, because of financial constraints these vulnerable communities cannot be reached for project implementation. This issue is well in line with the experiences shared in Chapter 5; that donors often look for places that are easily accessible to work in, often locations close to the main business centers. According to the country coordinator, transportation costs, manual labour and the community needs are essential factors that should be taken into consideration when drawing up project budgets. Unfortunately many donors do not cover the cost of transportation when disbursing aid. This issue had been expressed by respondents from both the regional and national levels.

The M & E officer was also interviewed on whether the projects had carried out the required monitoring and evaluation assessment. According to this staff, the process was carried out in early 2015; approximately a year and a half after the water systems were installed. Based on the interview, there were mixed outcomes of the projects. The following paragraphs will provide the various findings of the M & E process carried out by the project team.

In the Navudi and Navai Villages, the water system installed was working well and villagers were enjoying water directly pumped to their households. The plumbing training conducted had enabled villagers to further install flush toilets and sinks that further lead to improved sanitation in the communities. According to the monitoring and evaluation officer, 95% of the households interviewed have installed flush toilets and kitchen and bathing sinks. According to the communities, women and children, who normally walk great distances to fetch water, have more time to do gardening and children have more time to attend to their home-work.

In the Rokosalase village, there were some maintenance issues involved. Tanks installed were dirty often leading to houses receiving dirty waters from the pipes. According to the officer

130

interviewed, this was a community failure as the committee responsible for maintenance of the tanks was very inactive.

In Korolevu, there was also an issue with inactive committee members. Another issue for the community was that one household located where the water tanks were set up was able to receive piped water only when the tank is mid-way full and does not receive water when the tank is full. According to the M & E officer, this was a technical problem that will have to be solved by the project team upon further implementation of issues identified in the M & E phase.

In Yanuca village, communities were still faced with lack of water, particularly during periods of low rainfall. According to the M & E officer, communities had identified the wrong source of water for the project. Villagers would have been able to work together in choosing the correct source of water. However, villagers were unable to do so as there is great division within the community. The project came up with some recommendations on how to improve the project, one of which is to build a house over the installed water tank with a gutter that will be able to collect rain even during times of low rainfall.

6.6: Linking Aid Effectiveness at the Regional, National and Community Levels.

Based on information obtained from the M & E reports and audio recordings from the local communities, participants judged the Plumbing training as “Successful”, however noted that further training was required on “Water Management”. Villagers had noted that “time” was the greatest limiting factor to the effectiveness of these trainings.

Many lessons can be drawn from this project in terms of the effectiveness of aid for climate change adaptation at the grassroots level. First of all, as seen in chapter 5, a “one size fits all” kind of approach does not work well at the grassroots level. This issue was raised by one of the government officials interviewed for this thesis (refer to chapter 5 for direct quotes). Communities usually have very unique challenges that often need very specific measures of adaptation. In this sense, a pre-determined project/programme objective, by other development partners, will not solve much of the issues experienced at the grassroots level.

131

The EUGCCA Project had given room for communities to identify their main priority area. The rapid vulnerability and adaptation assessments conducted by the team had also shown that at the grassroots level, the main sector to address is the “water sector”. Projects and programmes designed to address other issues such as policy development and reforms, adaptation plans, strategies and frameworks will have to factor this issue in order to improve the livelihoods at the grassroots level.

As seen in the case of the Navai and Navudi communities, the project not only benefitted the communities in terms of having better access to water, but the project further led to improved sanitation and hygiene in the communities. As previously discussed, the project was evaluated a year and six months after implementation and although it was too early to measure project sustainability, lessons drawn from Korolevu, Rokosalase and Yanuca Villages all showed that the project was either “partly effective” or “not effective” (depending on how one judges the situation). Such conclusions can only be altered if issues identified during the M & E stages are successfully implemented.

The problem with the Yanuca Project can be seen as a coordination and accountability problem. Due to the division that exists within the community, the project was not successful. Inactive committees established in the Korolevu and Rokosalase villages can also be regarded as a coordination problem among the different members in that committee. This further verifies the information gathered from some regional and government officials that in order for projects/programmes to be effective, coordination is required at all levels (international, regional, national and at the community levels). It may also be that what works in other communities does not necessarily work in others, as in the case of setting up of committees to oversee project maintenance. This is also an accountability problem on the part of the committee members. If leadership does not come from within the communities, projects cannot achieve much positive outputs.

In terms of the trainings that were given, “time” was also considered a limiting factor. It was clearly evident from the community report that: community members felt they needed more

132

training as the ones that were held were too brief due to time constraints. “Majority of the community members did not remember what the purpose of the training was and some had to be reminded who conducted the training so they could remember participating in it” (Samani & Yakub, 2015). This issue was also raised by officials working for the regional organisations and national governments, because officials have so much work to do within a set time frame, not enough time was available to spend in the communities. The following is a direct quote from one government official interviewed:

“M & E has a lot of administrative burden. For the reporting you need a lot of surveys and they are not cheap.”

When officials are overly burdened by various donor requirements, it trickles down to the grassroots level as seen in the case of the EUGCCA project. The two trainings conducted could have brought more positive changes in the rest of the communities as villagers would have been able to maintain the water systems. Lack of capacity in the communities was a factor that could have been effectively addressed as part of the training. This also could have ensured project sustainability and although the project had been aimed at “local ownership”, lack of coordination within villages had contributed a lot to the project outcome.

Another important issue that should be considered is the level of accountability and motivation from local communities. As this project indicates, the aid programme can do as much but some responsibility must be taken by recipient communities as well. As such, when a committee (or other similar initiatives) is installed in a village, the members need to do the work.

The EUGCCA Project’s Fiji community component provides a good case study. It will be interesting to know how other community projects have performed. As stated by one of the government officials interviewed for this thesis:

“There are a lot of projects. A lot of these projects work towards the project objectives, so you work to your project objectives but you also need to see how your project impacts on other

133

projects in the long term, not just what you did like you consulted this communities, you implemented, how much you build something but what’s the impact in the livelihoods of the people.”

It can be seen from the previous discussions that some issues facing communities are very similar to that faced by the regional organisation and national governments. Like the example from the USP-EUGCCA Project shows, lack of coordination will impact negatively on project sustainability. Accountability and transparency is of course everybody’s business as it ensures the required “feedback loop” necessary to inform the different development partners on the effectiveness of implemented projects. The USP-EUGCCA Project is somehow successful as some funds actually trickle down to the grassroots levels. However, for the case of the PICs meaningful and effective aid can only be accomplished when respective adaptive capacities are increased and vulnerabilities decreased. The USP’s support (through PaCE-SD) for the region will have to be sustainable in order to maintain the centre’s vision of “Sustainable Development” but also to ensure that projects implemented encourages effective capacity building in all spheres of engagement. This has been effectively achieved through the USP-EUGCCA fully funded scholarships, however, such impacts will be realised in the longer term and accessing the effectiveness of this will evidently be difficult.

6.7: Chapter Conclusion

Chapters 5 discussed effectiveness at the regional and national levels. This chapter is more focused on effectiveness at the grassroots level drawing from lessons learned from the USP- EUGCCA Project. Although the three different levels of engagement have been explored and discussed in separate chapters, close linkages were drawn out from these chapters.

The USP-EUGCCA Project is a good case-study that showed the impact of climate finance at the grassroots level. An important aspect of this project is that aid for climate change adaptation had filtered down to the community level.

134

Issues that were identified as impacting effectiveness at the three selected communities in Fiji were very much similar to that experienced at the national and regional levels. Coordination had surfaced as a factor contributing to the negative outcome in the Rokosalase and Korolevu villages. Lack of capacity at the grassroots level was also another issue that led to the failure to maintain the water systems. Lack of local capacity could have been addressed were there enough time for the trainings but then again, more time will require more resources and since the project had to stick within a definite time-frame, not much can be done. All the issues combined impact the overall sustainability of the project.

The USP-EUGCCA Project (Fiji Community Component) had a mixed impact on the livelihood of the communities. This study also showed that conclusions on the effectiveness of aid should not be too ‘generalised’ as specific communities will have a mixed outcome depending on how their issues are dealt with.

135

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0: Chapter Introduction

The PICs have contributed relatively very little to the greenhouse effect globally, yet the negative effects of climate change are adversely being felt in the region. In 2011, during the Forum Leader’s Meeting, leaders in the PICs regarded climate change as the “single greatest threat” in the region and called for greater action on climate change. Climate change is a cross- cutting issue that can only be effectively addressed globally. As for the case of the PICs, the most important measure to deal with the impacts of climate change is through “Adaptation”. Financial support to the region is already underway, delivered through a variety of modalities. Adaptation efforts are also underway addressing various sectors and issues: from policy formation and reforms to actual on-the-ground activities. In spite of this, research into the effectiveness of these assistances is still at its infancy. This thesis adds on to the existing body of knowledge around the effectiveness of climate finance in the PICs.

The thesis explored the issue of aid effectiveness looking at it from a regional, national as well as community perspectives. As part of the study, four officials from four selected regional organisations namely: SPREP, SPC, PIFS and USP were interviewed along with eleven national government representatives from eleven PICs. The four regional organisations were selected due to their great involvement in climate change activities in the PICs. A component of the thesis explored effectiveness at the grassroots level drawing on the lessons learnt from the community component of the USP-EUGCCA Project in Fiji. Fiji’s communities were specifically chosen as their projects were advanced in comparison to other countries. Grassroots populations are at the far end of the receiving chain of any development aid. It is therefore highly important that such studies include them.

This thesis had employed a qualitative research approach. Both primary and secondary research strategies were used throughout the course of the research. The use of semi-structured open- ended interviews was the primary means of data collection. Primary information is important in any research as it provides first-hand information regarding the topic under investigation. In the

136

case of this study, primary information was gathered from officials involved in the management and mobilization and all other relevant logistics related to aid for climate change adaptation in the PICs.

Secondary strategies that are employed in this research involved the use of readily available information from various sources (internet and other data from existing sources). Surveys of existing literatures and readily available data were used mainly to further explain the effectiveness of aid in the PICs.

7.1: Major Findings of the Primary Survey

The major conclusion that can be drawn out from the primary data collected is that aid for climate change is not as effective in the PICs as one may think. Huge amounts of money had already been disbursed into the region; however, the outcomes are not effective in dealing with adaptation in the region. According to the results of this research, aid for climate change adaptation is perceived to be either “Partly Effective” or “Not Effective” (corresponding to more than 50% of respondents) in addressing adaptation in the PICs. Various issues had contributed to the above finding.

Based on the primary results of the interviews conducted, four major factors impede development aid, in particular, climate finance (for adaptation) from achieving more meaningful results. These factors include:

1. Coordination and Harmonization. 2. Accessibility to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Funds and Institutional Capacity. 3. Donor Influence. 4. Accountability and Transparency. The four factors listed above emerged as “themes” when interview scripts were analysed. The themes were listed in order of their percentage coverage with “1” being mentioned by ALL of the participants interviewed (15 out of 15). Accessibility to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)

137

Funds and Institutional Capacity the second major theme as it was noted by 14 out of the 15 respondents interviewed. Donor Influence was listed third as it was brought up by 12 out of the 15 respondents whereas Accountability and Transparency was listed “4” as it was perceived by 10 respondents to hinder effectiveness in the PICs.

Apart from the four major themes listed above, other challenges are also experienced. These specific issues were considered equally important to the topic therefore were not totally excluded however included in various parts of the thesis. The four issues given above are considered as ‘major’ factors impeding aid effectiveness in the PICs because they were revealed by a significant majority (75% and above) of the participants involved in this research.

An important chapter of this thesis (Chapter 6) explored aid effectiveness drawing on lessons learnt from the Fiji community component of the USP-EUGCCA Project. The major conclusion that can be drawn out from this case study was that the issues relating to the effectiveness of the project at the grassroots level are closely linked to the major themes that emerged from the primary results. Coordination is indeed required at all levels across the web of partnership so is accountability and transparency of community members. The evaluation conducted by the project team had found that further work will be needed to address water and sanitation in the communities. It is also important to note that communities have very unique adaptation requirements that cannot be effectively addressed in a “one size fits all” kind of approach. This issue must be heavily considered by donors, regional organisations, national governments and any other development partner engaging in the region. In addition to this, communities have to be involved and be active participants in order for a project to be successful, as highlighted in the information in Chapter 6.

7.2: Recommendations to Ensuring Aid Effectiveness in the Region.

Providing recommendations to ensuring aid effectiveness in the PICs was one of the objectives of this thesis. Respondents were specifically asked to give recommendations, based on their own perception, on how to improve aid effectiveness in the region. In order to have a clear view of where these recommendations fit into the current regional Compact on Strengthening

138

Development Effectiveness in the PICs (Cairns Compact), specific quotes will be aligned with the set of principles outlined in the Cairns Compact (refer to Chapter 2 and 3 for more on the Cairns Compact). Table 7.1 provides various recommendations by the respondents.

Table 7.1 below provided various recommendations from some officials who were willing to share their perceptions on ways to improve aid effectiveness in the PICs. It can be seen from the table that some respondents gave recommendations that are closely related to the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles (Cairns Compact), although some principles in the compact are obviously too generalized to be applicable to specific country needs, let alone communities who are adversely affected by the negative impacts of climate change.

Respondents’ recommendations are important as they help inform the wider development community of important actions that are highly relevant to the PICs.

In addition to the above recommendations from officials interviewed, the following are further recommendations the researcher would like to highlight:

- Development Aid and Climate Finance should both support existing policies and plans that address sustainable development but at the same time factor in climate change considerations. - In order for aid to be effective, all efforts should be coordinated. All developing partners in the region should harmonise their efforts to avoid duplication of efforts. - The PICs need to further strengthen existing institutions to be able to have more access to available climate finance. - Regional organisations should re-examine their respective roles and mandates and better coordinate efforts to avoid duplication.

139

Table 7.1: Relationship between stated recommendations and Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles.

Recommendations from Regional Organisations Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles

“We really need to bring donors and development partners together Principle 7: Use of an agreed monitoring and evaluation framework and to agree on a number of things like: that will ensure joint assessments of the implementation of agreed commitments on aid effectiveness. (Paris Declaration 43-46; Indicator

Agree to work to an accepted template. 11) Respond to a common understanding on what the priorities are and working together on how they can address those Principle 4: Pacific Development Partners and Countries pursue a priorities & coordinated approach in the delivery of assistance. Encouraging Divide the labour; who’s going to be doing what, where, harmonization will be a priority for both. (Paris Declaration 32- 42; when and how? Indicators 9, 10) I think if we do this, it simplifies things for the countries themselves because then they won’t have to deal with lots of bilateral donors, lots of multilateral donors and they can sort of work towards what

“Donors should promote direct access of available funds for communities and national governments (example: Small grants Projects by UNDP).

The different implementing and executing entities should try and ff k hh

140

“We must also be reminded that we need to strengthen our Principle 5: Strengthened institutional mechanisms and capacity in governance institutional systems to be able to manage funds that are countries to enable increased use of local systems by development coming into the region. Most of our governments are not that partners. (Paris Declaration 17, 21, 22-24, 31; Indicator 4, 6, 8) transparent and one needs to closely monitor the type of environment that supports funds that are coming in. for example, the promise of large amounts of aid for a country usually causes tension within the government as of which ministry/department should manage the funds.”

“Countries should learn to say NO to plans that are not in line with Principle 1: Country leadership and ownership of development through their national priorities. This will ensure that money reaches the most an accountable and transparent national development planning and vulnerable as these are already priorities in national plans.” financial management system/mechanism which is adequately resourced from the national budget including longer term operation and “Donors should clearly report on the difference between New and maintenance of donor sponsored development. (Paris Declaration Additional ODA. This is to make Climate Financing more Section 14, 19; Indicator 1, 2)

“Projects that are implemented should be managed under already Principle 5: Strengthened institutional mechanisms and capacity in existing systems, for example, the church.” countries to enable increased use of local systems by development partners (Paris Declaration 17, 21, 22-24, 31; Indicator 4, 6, 8)

141

Recommendations by National Government Respondents Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles

“It’s really the process that is challenging. The process especially Principle 4: Pacific Development Partners and Countries pursue a ‘reporting’ should be streamlined.” coordinated approach in the delivery of assistance. Encouraging harmonization will be a priority for both. (Paris Declaration 32- 42; Indicators 9, 10)

“You cannot address Climate Change if you cannot address wider Principle 4: Pacific Development Partners and Countries pursue a economic development. Unless efforts are coordinated and coordinated approach in the delivery of assistance. Encouraging government owned, transparent and accountable, it will never work.” harmonization will be a priority for both. (Paris Declaration 32- 42; Indicators 9, 10)

“Invest in something that can have lasting impact. Something that Principle 4: Pacific Development Partners and Countries pursue a will bring us out of the trap that we are in.” coordinated approach in the delivery of assistance. Encouraging harmonization will be a priority for both. (Paris Declaration 32- 42; Indicators 9, 10)

142

7.3: Researching Aid Effectiveness in the PICs: A Way Forward

Although aid effectiveness has been a great topic of debate globally, the PICs are fairly new to this field. There is very limited research done on the effectiveness of climate financial assistances in the PICs. Chapter 2 explored some of the literatures that have addressed aid effectiveness in the region. This study attempted to address this issue looking at it from the experiences of officials from four regional organizations (SPREP, PIFS, SPC and USP) that are major players in issues relating to climate change finance in the PICs and also the broad aim to partly fill the research gap that exists within this subject area. National governments are major decision makers. To a certain extent, governments drive the work of the regional organisations (by setting their various mandates) but to a larger extent drive policies and actions in their respective countries. Governments therefore should always provide an enabling environment that allows national priorities to be effectively addressed. In this sense, they provide invaluable information to the current study. Similarly, communities are very important as they provide insight on whether they are effectively adapting to climate change with the finances that are flowing into the region. Future study into this broad topic should not only cover important organisations such as the ones studied here, however explore other players in the web of partnership.

This study had limitations that cannot be overlooked by future researchers. The following points outline some of the recommended actions worth considering:

- Communities are at the forefront of all impacts. While climate change affects all communities, the levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacities are different, depending on their respective levels of exposures and sensitivities. Future research on aid effectiveness should therefore explore, in much more detail, whether aid for climate change adaptation is actually filtered down to the grassroots level. For those that are already benefiting from the available financial assistances, more research will be needed to find out the impact of these assistances on peoples livelihoods.

- Future research should also explore aid effectiveness based on donor perspectives.

143

- While this study involves collecting information from regional and national government officials, future research should also take into account perspectives of officials working in the non-government organizations (NGOs) and the private sector. These development partners also receive substantial amounts of climate financial resources.

7.4: Chapter Conclusion

This chapter has summarized the major findings of this thesis and gave recommendations on how to improve aid effectiveness in the region. Limitations to this study were also re-highlighted to give future research room for improvement.

As part of the agreement between the researcher and respondents, the researcher has maintained confidentiality throughout this study. All recordings and interview scripts will be destroyed three months after this thesis is complete.

The researcher hopes that by compiling this thesis, more improvement can be made to ensure aid effectiveness in the PICs. This improvement however calls for the strengthening of current government and institutional arrangements. Regional and national efforts will also have to impact as far as the grassroots people as they are already adversely affected by the impacts of climate change. Researchers can grapple with the different indicators to measure effectiveness. However, for the PICs climate change is already threatening their very existence and until resilience is increased and vulnerability decreased, aid will continue to work in partial fulfilment of its well intentions.

144

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, C. (2007). Foreign Aid: Effectively Advancing Security Interests. Harvard International Review, 29(3), 62-67.

Alvi, E., Mukherjee, D., & Shukralla, E. K. (2008). Aid, Policies, and Growth In Developing Countries: A New Look At the Empirics. Southern Economic Journal, 74(3 ), 693-706.

Anne-Marie, A., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. F. (1995). Understanding And Evaluating Qualitative Research. Journal Of Marriage And Family, 57(4), 879-893.

Arndt, C., Jones, S., & Tarp, F. (2009). Aid And Growth Have We Come Full Circle? (pp. 1-38). UNU-WIDER: United Nations University.

Asia-Pacific Aid Effectiveness Portal. (2009). Events And Processes Retrieved 31 December 2013, from http://www.aideffectiveness.org/Events-Processes-Rome-Paris-Accra- Busan.html

Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO. (2011). Climate Change In The Pacific: Scientific Assessment And New Research (Vol. 1: Regional Overview): Australian Bureau Of Meteorology And Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Australian Government. (2015). How We Measure Performance. Performance, Management And Results. Retrieved 27 March 2015, from http://www.dfat.gov.au/aid/how-we- measure-performance/Pages/how-we-measure-performance.aspx

Axline, W. A. (1989). The Role of Regional Powers And Regional Organisations Security In South-East Asia And The South-West Pacific: Challenges Of The 1900s (pp. 175-187). United Nations Plaza, New York, USA: International Peace Academy Inc.

Ayers, J. M., Huq, S., Faisal, A. M., & Hussain, S. T. (2014). Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation Into Development: A Case Study Of Bangladesh. WIREs Climate Change, 5, 37-51.

Barnett, J. (2005). Titanic States? Impacts And Responses To Climate Change In The Pacific Islands. Journal Of International Affairs, 59(1), 203.

Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis With NVivo. Thousand Oaks, Califonia: SAGE Publications Inc.

Bird, N., & Glennie, J. (2011). Going Beyond Aid Effectiveness To Guide the Delivery Of Climate Finance Background Note. ODI United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute.

145

Bird, N., Beloe, T., Ockenden, S., Corfee-Morlot, J., & Zou, S. (2011). Going Beyond Aid Effectiveness To Guide The Delivery Of Climate Finance: Overseas Development Institute.

Bird, N., Beloe, T., Ockenden, S., Corfee-Morlot, J., & Zou, S. (2013). Understanding Climate Change Finance Flows And Effectiveness - Mapping Of Recent Initiatives UNDP,OECD,Capacity Development for Development,Effectiveness Facility For Asia And Pacific.

Boone, P. (1995). Politics And The Effectiveness Of Foreign Aid. NBER Working Paper Series: National Bureau Of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Botsiou, E. K. (2009). New Policies, Old Politics: American Concepts Of Reform In Marshall Plan Greece. Journal Of Modern Greek Studies, 27(2), 209-240.

Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using Thematic Study In Psycology. Qualitative Research In Psycology, 3, 77-101.

Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing And Presenting Qualitative Data. British Dental Journal, 204(8), 429-432.

Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, Policies, And Growth. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 847-868.

Carbon Market Solutions, & Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (2010). Mobilising Climate Change Funding In The Pacific Islands Region. Apia, Samoa: SPREP.

Climate Funds Update. (2014). Climate Funds Update: The Latest Information On Climate Funds. Retrieved 24 February 2015

Climate Funds Update. (2015). Global Climate Finance Architecture Climate Funds Update. http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/about-climate-fund/global-finance-architecture: Climate Funds Update.

Crank, J. P., & Jacoby, L. S. (2015). What Is Global Warming. In P. Chester & E. S. Boyne (Eds.), Crime, Violence And Global Warming. 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA: 2015 Elsevier Inc.

Denscombe, M. (2009). Ground Rules For Social Research: Guidelines For Good Practice (2nd Edition). Berkshire, GBR: Open University Press.

Dollar, D., & Svensson, J. (2000). What Explains The Success And Failure Of Structural Adjustment Programs? The Economic Journal, 110, 894-917.

146

Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why The West's Efforts To Aid The Rest Have Done So Much Ill And So Little Good. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

Easterly, W., Levine, R., & Roodman, D. (2003). New Data, New Doubts: A Comment On Burnside and Dollar’s “Aid, Policies, and Growth. NBER Working Paper No. 9846. 1050 Massachusetts Avenue.: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA 02138.

Easterly, W., Levine, R., & Roodman, D. (2004). Aid, Policies, And Growth: Comment. The American Economic Review, 94(3), 774-780.

Easterly, W., & Williamson, C. R. (2011). Rhetoric Versus Reality: The Best And Worst Of Aid Agency Practices. World Development, 11(39), 1930-1949.

Encyclopædia Britannica (Cartographer). (2014). Pacific Islands: Map Of The Pacific Islands. Retrieved 12 February 2015, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/61639/Map-of-the-Pacific-Islands

Farnsworth, S. J., & Lichter, R. S. (2011). The Structure Of Scientific Opinion On Climate Change. International Journal Of Public Opinion Research, 24(1), 93 - 103.

Feturi, A. I. (2012). Pacific Preparatory Meeting For UNFCCC COP 18. In P. p. Presentation (Ed.), (pp. Diagram Of Climate Finance Architecture For The PICs). Apia Samoa.

Fiji Guide. (2015). The Fiji Islands-A Geographical Overview. Retrieved 12 February 2015, from http://fijiguide.com/page/the-land

Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Fiji Islands Bureau Of Statistics: The Official Statistical Agency For The Fiji Government. Retrieved 2 December, 2014, from http://www.spc.int/prism/fjtest/Social/popn_summary.htm

Fransen, T., Nakhooda, S., Shimizu, N., & Harmeling, S. (2012). Fast-Start Finance: Where Do We Stand At The End of 2012? Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/blog/2012/12/fast- start-finance-where-do-we-stand-end-2012

Fry, G. (1981). Regionalism And International Politics Of The South Pacific. Pacific Affairs, 54(3), 455-484.

Fry, G. (1997). The South Pacific 'Experiment': Reflections On The Origins Of Regional Identity. The Journal Of Pacific History, 32(2), 180-202.

Global Climate Change Alliance. (2012a). Official European Commission Website: EuropeAid's Page On Climate Change. About The GCCA. Retrieved 7 November 2014, 2014, from http://www.gcca.eu/about-the-gcca

147

Global Climate Change Alliance. (2012b). Secretariat Of The Pacific Community – Global Climate Change Alliance: Pacific Small Island States. Retrieved 31 August 2015, 2015, from http://www.spc.int/en/our-work/climate-change/gcca.html

Google Earth (Cartographer). (2015). Map Of Yanuca Island In Fiji. .

Gurria, A. (2010). Aid Effectiveness: Why Does It Matter To South-South Cooperation? Development Outreach. Retrieved 8 April, 2015, from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1020-797X_12_2_10

Hasnat, B. (2010). American Foreign Aid Before And During The War On Terror: An Empirical Examination. The Journal Of Social, Political, And Economic Studies, 35(1), 79-94.

Hau'ofa, E. (1998). The Ocean In Us. The Contemporary Pacific, 10(2), 392-410.

Healey, J. (2012). An Effective Aid Program For Australia: Making A Real Difference In International Aid (Vol. 344, pp. 65). New South Wales: The Spinney Press.

Hemstock, S., & Smith, R. (2012). The Impacts Of International Aid On The Energy Security Of Small Island Developing States (SIDS ): A Case Study Of Tuvalu. Central European Journal Of International And Security Studies, 1, 81-102.

Herr, R. A. (1986). Regionalism, Strategic Denial And South Pacific Security. The Journal Of Pacific History, 21(4), 170-182.

Hjertholm, P., & White, H. (1998). Survey Of Foreign Aid: History, Trends And Allocation: Institute Of Econimics: University Of Copenhagen, Institute of Development Studies: University Of Sussex.

Hughes, H. (2003). Aid Has Failed The Pacific Issue Analysis (pp. 1-32). Sydney: The Center For Independent Studies.

International Institute For Sustainable Development (2010). "High-level Review Meeting On The Implementation Of The Mauritius Strategy For The Further Implementation Of The Programme Of Action For The Sustainable Development Of Small Island Developing States 24-25 September 2010." IISD Reporting Services. Retrieved 31 March 2015, from http://www.iisd.ca/vol08/enb0848e.html.

IPCC. (2007). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.

IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. (C. U. Press Ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC. (2015). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Retrieved 28 January 2015, from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

148

Jasanoff, S. (2010). Testing Time Of Climate Science. Science, 328(5979), 695 - 696. doi: 10.1126/science.1189420

Jayaraman, T. K., & Choohg, C.-K. (2006). Aid And Economic Growth In Pacific Island Countries: An Empirical Study Of Aid Effectiveness In Fiji. Perspectives On Global Development And Technology, 5(4), 329-350.

Kakazu, H. (1994). Sustainable Development Of Small Island Economies. Pacific Affairs, 69(2), 300-301.

Kenny, C. (2006). What Is Effective Aid? How Do Donors Allocate It? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4005 (pp. 1-27): World Bank.

Khan, A. M., & Ahmed, A. (2007). Foreign Aid-blessing Or Curse: Evidence From Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 46(3), 215-240.

Kim, E. M., & Oh, J. (2012). Determinants Of Foreign Aid: The Case Of South Korea. Journal Of East Asian Studies, 12(2), 251-273.

Kirtman, B., Power, S. B., Adedoyin, A. J., Boer, G. J., Bojariu, R., Camilloni, I., Wang, H.-J. (2013). Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability. In P. Delecluse, T. Palmer, T. Shepherd & F. Zweiers (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution Of Working Group I To The Fifth Assessment Report Of The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (pp. 1-76). Cambridge , United Kingdom, New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Kozul-Wright, R., & Pierguiseppe, F. (2011). Securing Peace. Huntingdon, GBR: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

Lancaster, C. (2009). Sixty Years Of Foreign Aid: What Have We Learned? International Journal, 64(3), 799-810.

Maclellan, N. (2011). Improving Access To Climate Financing For The Pacific Islands: Lowly Institute For International Policy.

Maclellan, N., & Coates, S. M. B. (2012). Owning Adaptation In The Pacific: Strengthening Governance Of Climate Adaptation Finance. Oxfam New Zealand And Oxfarm Australia: Oxfam New Zealand.

Mathie, A., & Carnozzi, A. (2005). Qualitative Research for Tobacco Control : A How-to Introductory Manual For Researchers And Development Practitioners. Ottawa, ON, CAN: IDRC Books.

149

McArther, J. W. (2013). Own The Goals: What The Millennium Development Goals Have Accomplished. Foreign Affairs, 92(2), 152-162.

McNamara, K. E., & Limalevu, L. (2001). Contextualising Livelihood In A Vulnerability And Adaptation Assessment: Case Study Of Soso Village, Fiji. PaCE-SD Occassional Paper. Suva: PaCE-SD, University Of The South Pacific.

McNamara, K. E., Hemstock, S., & Holland, E. A. (2011). Practices Of Climate Change Adaptation In The Pacific: Survey Of Implementing Agencies (phase II) (PaCE-SD, Trans.). Suva: PaCE-SD, The University Of The South Pacific.

McNamara, K. E., Hemstock, S. L., Holland, E. A., European Union, & Pacific Center For Environment And Sustainable Development. (2012). PaCE-SD Guidebook: Participatory Vulnerability And Adaptation Assessment. Retrieved 13 April, 2015, from http://pace.usp.ac.fj/Portals/0/PACE-GB.pdf

Minoiu, C., & Reddy, S. (2007). Aid Does Matter, After All: Revisiting The Relationship Between Aid and Growth. Challenge, 50(2), 39-58.

Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid -Why Aid Is Not Working And How There Is Another Way For Africa. London: Penguin Books.

Museum Victoria (Cartographer). (2014). Map Of The Fiji Islands. Retrieved from http://museumvictoria.com.au/fiji/map.aspx

Nakhooda, S., Fransen, T., Kuramoch, T., Caravani, A., Prizzon, A., Shimizu, N., Welham, B. (2013). Mobilising International Climate Finance: Lessons From The Fast-Start Finance Period. (pp. 66): Overseas Development Institute (ODI), World Resources Institute, Institute For Global Environment Strategies (IGES).

Nakhooda, S. and ODI (2013). The Effectiveness Of International Climate Finance. Working Paper 371. 203 Blackfriars Road London, ODI: 27.

Nakhooda, S., & Jha, V. (2014). Getting It Together: Institutional Arrangements For Coordination And Stakeholder Engagement In Climate Finance (pp. 1-28). 203 Blackfriars Road London SEI 8NJ: Overseas Development Institute.

Nakhooda, S., Norman, M., Banard, S., Watson, C., Greenhill, R., Garavani, A., ODI. (2014). Climate Finance: Is It Making A Difference? A Review Of The Effectiveness Of Multilateral Climate Funds. London SE1 8NJ: ODI.

New Zealand Government. (2015). New Zealand Aid Programme. Measuring Results. Retrieved 27 March 2015, from http://www.aid.govt.nz/about-aid-programme/measuring-results.

Nunn, P. D. (1999). Environmental Change In The Pacific Basin: Chronologies, Causes And Consequences: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

150

Nunn, P. D. (2000). Environmental Catastrophe In The Pacific Islands around A.D. 1300. Geoarchaeology, 15, 715-740.

Nunn, P. D. (2013). The End Of The Pacific? Effects Of Sea Level Rise On Pacific Island Livelihoods. Singapore Journal Of Tropical Geography, 34(2), 143-171.

Nurse, L. A., McLean, R. F., Agard, J., Briguglio, L. P., Duvat-Magnan, V., Pelesikoti, N., Webb, A. (2014). Small Islands In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, And Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. In T. Spencer & K. Yasuhara (Eds.), Contribution Of Working Group II To The Fifth Assessment Report Of The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York, NY, USA.

Ockenden, S., & OECD. (2014). Increasing The Transparency Of Climate-related Development Finance Flows: Publishing Detail On Over 7,000 Projects in 2013. Retrieved from http://blog.climatefundsupdate.org/2014/12/10/increasing-the-transparency-of-climate- related-development-finance-flows-publishing-detail-on-over-7000-projects-in-2013/

OECD. (2014a). Aid Effectiveness. Retrieved 31 March, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm.

OECD. (2014b). Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD-DAC). Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/.

OECD. (2014c). Multilateral Aid Report (Preliminary Copy ed.). OECD.

OECD. (2014d). OECD Statistics. Retrieved 31 March, 2014, from http://stats.oecd.org/qwids/.

Olivera, M., Bitencourt, C., Teixeira, E., & Santos, A. C. (2013). Thematic Content Analysis: Is There A Difference Between The Support Provided By The MAXQDA And NVivo Software Packages? European Conference On Research Methodology For Business And Management Studies, 304-XIII.

Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change. Science, 306(5702). doi: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants Of Doubt: How A Handful Of Scientists Obscured The Truth On Issues From Tobacco Smoke To Global Warming. Bloombury Publishing, London, United Kingdom.

Ouattara, B., & Strobl, E. (2008b). Aid, Policy and Growth: Does Aid Modality Matter? Review Of World Economics, 144(2), 347-365.

Oxfam International. (2010). 21st Century Aid: Recognising Success And Tackling Failure. Retrieved 17 May 2015, from https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/21st-century-aid

151

Pacific Center for Environment And Sustainable Development. (2012). Power Point Presentation On The USP-EUGCCA Project. USP: PaCE-SD.

Pacific Center For Environment and Sustainable Development. (2015). Climate Change Impacts. In U. o. t. S. Pacific (Ed.), PaCE-SD. University Of The South Pacific. : PACE-SD.

Pacific Climate Change Portal. (2012). Projects. Retrieved 4 October 2015, 2015, from http://projects.pacificclimatechange.net/

Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistant Programme, & Fiji Country Team. (2005). Fiji's First National Communications Under The Framework Convention On Climate Change 2005. Retrieved 31 August 2015, 2015

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1971). South Pacific Forum: Joint Final Communique Wellington, New Zealand.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1972). The South Pacific Forum: Communique. Canberra.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1973). South Pacific Forum: Communique Apia, Samoa.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1995). Twenty-sixth South Pacific Forum: Forum Communique (pp. 22). Madang, Papua New Guinea: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1996). Twenty-seventh South Pacific Forum. Forum Communique Retrieved 14 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1997). Twenty-eigth South Pacific Forum. Forum Communique: SPFS (97)13. Retrieved 15 October 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1998). Twenty-ninth South Pacific Forum. Forum Communique. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (1999). Thirtieth South Pacific Forum. Forum Communique: SPFS (99)13. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2000). Thirty-first Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique 2000. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

152

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2001). Thirty-second Pacific Islands Forum. Forum communique. Retrieved 14 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2002). Thirty-third Pacific Islands Fourm. Forum Communique: PIFS (02)08. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2003). Thirty-fourth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS(03)11. Retrieved 25 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2004). Thirty-fifth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique. Retrieved 15 October 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2005). Thirty-Sixth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS (05)12. Retrieved 30 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2006). Thirty-seventh Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS (06)12. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2007a). Pacific aid effectiveness principles (2007). Retrieved 14 March 2014, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/strategic- partnerships-coordination/pacific-principles-on-aid-effectiveness/

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2007b). The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration Retrieved 25 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/Pacific_Plan_Nov_2 007_version1.pdf

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2007c). Thirty-eighth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS(07)12. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2008). Thirty-ninth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from

153

http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2009a). Fortieth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS (09)12. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2009b). PACIFIC LEADERS’ CALL TO ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE. Paper presented at the FORTIETH PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM Cairns Australia.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2010a). Forty-first Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS(10)9. Retrieved 15 October 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2010b). Summary report on the peer review process: Cairns compact for strengthening development coordination in the Pacific.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2011a). Forty-second Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS(11)8. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2011b). Improving Access to and Management of Climate Change Resources. Suva, Fiji.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2012). Forty-third Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS(12)10. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2013). Forty-fourth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS(1308. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2014a). Climate Change. Retrieved 22 April, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/strategic-partnerships-coordination/climate-change/

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2014b). Forty-fifth Pacific Islands Forum. Forum Communique: PIFS(14)10. Retrieved 17 April, 2015, from http://www.forumsec.org/search.cfm?cx=011074193541013410244%3A5u5bqytlfd8&co f=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=communique&sa=

154

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2014c). The Framework for Pacific Regionalism. Retrieved 17 April, 2015, from http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/embeds/file/Framework%20for%20Pacific% 20Regionalism_booklet.pdf

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. (2014d). The Pacific Islands Forum. About Us. Retrieved 29 September, 2014, from http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/about-us/

Pearl-Martinez, R. (2011). Owning Adaptation. Country-Level Governance of Climate Adaptation Finance, 28. Retrieved from Oxfarm International website: https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp146-owning- adaptation-130611-en_4.pdf

Policy/PACNEWS, P. I. o. P. (2015). Who should be part of the regional architecture? Retrieved from http://www.pina.com.fj/?p=pacnews&m=read&o=144460550555302ad94d7bcba450f0

Prasad, B. C. (2008). Institutions, Good Governance and Economic Growth In The Pacific Island Countries. International Journal Of Social Economics 35(12): 904-918.

Preston, B. L., Suppiah, R., Macadam, I., Bathols, J., & CSIRO. (2006). Climate Change In The Asia/Pacific Region A Consultancy Report Prepared For The Climate Change And Development Roundtable. Australia: CSIRO.

QSR International. (2014). NVIVO 10 For Windows. Retrieved 1 November 2014, from QSR International Pty Ltd http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx

Radelet, S. (2006). A Primer On Foreign Aid: Center For Global Development.Working Paper 92. Retrieved 6 November 2014, from http://www.cgdev.org/publication/primer-foreign- aid-working-paper-92

Rajan, R., & Subramanian, A. (2007). Does Aid Affect Governance? The American Economic Review, 97(2), 322-327.

Riddel, R. C. (2007). Does Foreign Aid Really Work? (pp. 531). Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.cache5.usp.ac.fj:2048/lib/uspfj/docDetail.action?docID=10271423 &adv.x=1&p00=aid+effectiveness&f00=all

Rolfe, J. (2007). A Complex Of Structures: Functional Diversity, Regional Consolidation, And Community Development In The Asia-Pacific. Asian Affairs, 33(4), 217-234.

Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Stages Of Economic Growth. The Economic History Review, 12(1), 1-16.

Sah, B. L., & Joshi, D. U. (2007). The Politics of Global Warming. The Indian Journal Of Political Science, 68(4), 769-780.

155

Samani, T. (2015, 27 April 2015). [Interview On Monitoring And Evaluation Of The USP- EUGCCA Project].

Samani, T., & Yakub, N. (2015). Report Of Activities And Findings From The Evaluation Trip To Fiji's Pilot Sites. BTOR. BTOR. PaCE-SD. University Of The South Pacific.

Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Qualitative Research Practice. London, GBR: SAGE Publications.

Secretariat of the Pacific Community. (2011). Climate Change. Retrieved 16 April, 2014, from http://www.spc.int/en/our-work/climate-change.html

Secretariat of the Pacific Community. (2012). DÉCLARATION DE TAHITI NUI − TAHITI NUI DECLARATION. Noumea, New Caledonia: Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC).

Secretariat of the Pacific Community. (2013). Project Brief: Coping with Climate Chnage in the Pacific Region. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. from http://www.spc.int/images/climate- change/SPC_GIZ_2013_CCCPIR_projbrief_lowres.pdf

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (1992). 1991-1995 Action Plan for Managing the Environment of the South Pacific. Retrieved 14 October 2014, from http://www.sprep.org/

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Agreement Establishing The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (1993). Retrieved 14 October 2014, from http://www.sprep.org/

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (1997). Action Plan For Managing The Environment Of The South Pacific Region 1997-2000. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from https://www.sprep.org/att/publication/000125_1997_2000_sprep_action_plan.pdf

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (2000). Action Plan for Managing The Environment Of The Pacific Islands Region 2001-2004. Retrieved 15 October, 2014, from https://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/ecopies/SPREPCOREPUBS/ActionPlan2001- 04.pdf

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (2008). Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement Through Renewable Energy Project (PIGGAREP) Inception Report. Apia, Samoa: PIGGAREP Project Management Office (PMO).

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (2011). Pacific Regional Environment Programme Strategic Plan 2011-2015. Retrieved 18 April, 2015, from https://www.sprep.org/attachments/000921_SPREPStrategicPlan2011_2015.pdf

156

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (2014). Climate Change. Retrieved 16 April 2014, from http://www.sprep.org/climate-change/climate-change- about-us

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. (2015). SPREP Accredited To Multi-Billion Dollar Climate Fund [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.sprep.org/climate-change/sprep-accredited-to-multi-billion-dollar-climate- fund

Secretariat of the South Pacific Community. (1947). Canberra Agreement: Agreement Establishing The South Pacific Commision. Canberra: SPC.

Secretariat of the South Pacific Community. (2007). Meeting House of the South Pacific: The Story of SPC 1947-2007. . Noumea, New Caledonia: SPC.

Secretariat of the South Pacific Community. (2010). SOPAC Overview. Introduction To The Applied Geoscience And Technology Division. Retrieved 9 October, 2014, from http://www.sopac.org/index.php/sopac-overview

Secretariat of the South Pacific Community. (2013). History. Retrieved 26 September 2014, from http://www.spc.int/

Shalizi, Z., & Lacocq, F. (2009). To Mitigate Or To Adapt: Is That the Question? Observations On An Appropriate Response To The Climate Change Challenge To Development Strategies. Oxford Journals, 25, 295-321.

Skander, Debasri, A., Mukherjee, & Shukrallaf, E. K. (2008). Aid, Policies, And Growth In Developing Countries: A New Look at the Empirics. Southern Economic Journal, 74(3), 693-706.

Tarnoff, C., & Lawson, M. L. (2009). Foreign Aid: An Introduction to United States Programs and Policy. DISAM Journal of Internal Security Assistance Management, 31(3), 102-134.

The World Bank. (2014). Aid Effectiveness. Retrieved 31 March 2014, from http://data.worldbank.org/topic/aid-effectiveness

United Nations. (1978). The Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Retrieved 15 April, from United Nations http://ssc.undp.org/content/dam/ssc/documents/Key%20Policy%20Documents/Buenos% 20Aires%20Plan%20of%20Action.pdf

United Nations. (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration Resolution Adopted By The General Assembly. Retrieved 16 April, 2015, from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/55/2

United Nations Development Programme. (2011). Blending Climate Finance Through National Climate Funds. New York.

157

United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2015). Achieving Sustainable Development and Promoting Development Cooperation. Dialogues At The Economic And Social Council. Retrieved 12 February, 2015, from http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/docs/pdfs/fina_08- 45773.pdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Finance. Retrieved 27 March, 2014, from https://unfccc.int/focus/finance/items/7001.php

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, & Sem, G. (2014). Vulnerability And Adaptation To Climate Change In Small Island Developing States. Background Paper For The Expert Meeting On Adaptation For Small Island Developing States. Retrieved 15 Aug 2014, from https://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/adverse_effects_and_response_measures_art_48/applic ation/pdf/200702_sids_adaptation_bg.pdf

United Nations General Assembly (1994). Global Conference On The Sustainable Development Of Small Island Developing States: Report Of The Global Conference On The Sustainable Development Of Small Island Developing States. Bridgetown, Barbados.

University of the South Pacific. (2004). Pacific Centre For Environment and Sustainable Development (PaCE-SD). Retrieved 29 August 2015, from http://pace.usp.ac.fj/AboutUs.aspx

University of the South Pacific. (2013). USP's Vission, Mission And Values. Retrieved 7 October 2014, from http://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=usp_mission

Vaimoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis: Implications For Conducting A Qualitative Descriptive Study. Nursing And Health Sciences, 15, 398-405.

Virginia, B., & Victoria, C. (2008). Using Thematic Analysis In Psychology. Qualitative Research In Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Waterston, A. (2006). Development Planning: Lessons Of Experience (Vol. 15): Emarald Group Publishing Limited.

Wellington, J., & Szczerbinski, M. (2007). Research Methods For The Social Sciences. London, GBR: Continuum International Publishing.

World Population Review. (2014). Fiji Population 2014. Retrieved 2 November, 2014, from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/fiji-population/

Wrighton, N. (2010). Participation, Power And Practice In Development: A Case Study Of Theoretical Doctrines And International Agency Practice In Tuvalu. (Master Of Development Studies), Victoria University Of Wellington

158

Yakub, N. (2013). Fiji Community Component of USP-EUGCCA Project. Reports. PACE-SD. University of the South Pacific

159 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Copy of Confidentiality Agreement

160 Appendix 2: Total Bilateral ODA to Fiji (1995-2013)

Source: OECD. org

161

Appendix 3: Total ODA to the Oceania

Source: OECD. org

162

Appendix 4: Total ODA to all recipients

Flow(s): Donor(s) All Donors Total ODA Time Period 1960 4675.67 Recipient(s): 1961 5243.7 All Recipients 1962 5554.37 1963 5752.3 Sector(s): 1964 5924 Total Bilateral Aid To All Sectors 1965 6489.42 1966 6756.2 Flow Type(s): 1967 6358.11 Disbursement 1968 6913.92 1969 6888.9 Amount: 1970 7308.25 Current Prices (USD millions) 1971 8020.88 1972 9768.73 1973 11487.9 1974 16076.92 1975 20183.47 1976 19567.55 1977 20679.29 1978 27792.73 1979 30872.29 1980 37788.21 1981 35047.83 1982 34245.83 1983 32729.57 1984 33919.05 1985 33855.06 1986 42293.83 1987 46188.55 1988 52151.5 1989 50428.64 1990 64661.98 1991 66055.08 1992 68702.57 1993 61852.17 1994 65256.16 1995 65424.46 1996 62468.35 1997 55361.81 1998 59105.24 1999 59691.23 2000 60019.81 2001 59653.1 2002 67367.04 2003 80414.47 2004 92149.41 2005 120771.28 2006 120243.47 2007 122168.02 2008 144423.14 2009 140041 2010 148322.07 2011 160943.9 2012 150895.72

Source: OECD. org

163